Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Whitsun)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]

Mr. Joe Ashton: I do not usually waste the time of the House and I shall be brief today. I raise an important issue that did not arise until last weekend. The reports that appeared in many newspapers must have emanated from the Department for Education and Employment; they said that work permits for foreign footballers were to be changed drastically. Work permits are required for footballers who were not born within the European Community, and who come from Africa, south America and eastern Europe.
In general, the game welcomes an examination of the rules; they were originally made in 1975 when Britain was not in the EC, when there were only a handful of foreign players and when large amounts of cash were not involved. Criteria were laid down stating that foreign players had to be internationals, that they had to make 75 per cent. of appearances, that their work permits had to be renewed every year and that they were not permitted to take British jobs. That situation has trundled on for 20-odd years despite massive changes in the game and the involvement of huge sums of money.
There are good reasons for re-examining the rules. I shall not go into the details of the squad system, the Bosman ruling on transfers, the enormous amount of television money through Sky and all the other changes that have been made, but I believe that the system is unfair in that some clubs seem to get work permits for their players and others do not.
This is not a discussion about football, but about jobs and work. I am raising the subject today because of the unfortunate timing of the press release. All players' contracts expire on 30 June, which is the deadline by which clubs must say to players, "We are very sorry, but you are not good enough. Your contract is over and you are free to go without a transfer fee," or, "We want to keep you on." The fact that the announcement was made five weeks before that deadline, with the House rising until 8 June, has plunged many clubs into doubt and uncertainty. We are talking about some 48 players, some of whom are very high calibre, have contracts worth millions of pounds and are being paid thousands of pounds per week.
I understand that the Department for Education and Employment met the Football Association and the players' union this week for talks, but there must be an announcement from the Department in the next week or

so about certain issues. We have to know whether new rules will start at the beginning of next season or at the beginning of the 2000 season. How long will the talks continue?
Last season—and practically every season—600 professional footballers were made redundant. Their clubs tell them that they are not good enough or say that they want to change the team. Many of them are British. The Professional Footballers Association protest that they can be replaced by players from eastern Europe, who are probably paid only £25 or £50 a week and who think that £200 for playing in the English third division is a great deal of money. The Professional Footballers Association is worried about that and about the effect on the English national team. It feels that if all our teams carry nine or 10 foreign footballers, there is not much scope for future Beckhams to come through the ranks. Their entry at an early stage is blocked.
Those doubts have created a great deal of uncertainty concerning the 48 professional footballers from outside the EC. This very week, their clubs are deciding whether to renew their contracts and apply for new work permits starting on 30 June, or whether to take a chance on the rules being changed. They do not know what to do. I have been asked by the chairman of the premier league and other representatives of the game to make approaches to the Department and to ask for a statement. I rang the Department for Education and Employment yesterday and told them that I was raising the matter today. Instead of leaving everyone in limbo, there should be a moratorium or a freeze, and a statement saying that existing or renewed contracts will be exempt from the old regulations and will be covered by the new regulations, which will be more lax, until clubs and players know what to do.
Some of the players come from the former Yugoslavia and places such as Moldova, where there is a war. They do not know whether they will have to go home, whether their clubs will renew their contracts or whether they should go to Spain or Italy. What advice or reassurance can they get?
The new proposals, which were extensively leaked in the press, talk about young African footballers being sent here as apprentices, their schooling being paid for by British clubs that have their own outlets in Africa. African footballers have come to this country regularly via Belgium, which has strong African connections and less strict work permits. Some of the youngsters who have gone for trials in Belgium have done so without a return ticket home and have finished up virtually on the streets of a foreign country, unable to speak the language.
The situation needs explaining. I hope that Ministers can make a written statement, preferably before the end of the week, because the announcement two days ago has thrown the game into chaos.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House this morning a situation affecting a group of elderly constituents. This is a problem of which many hon. Members will have had experience.
The problem concerns those people who, in the 1980s, were sold home income plans—very often by companies or independent financial advisers—and who remortgaged a house. The mortgages on most of the houses had been


paid for. People did this to release capital, which was then reinvested into bonds, usually comprising solely equity funds. As a result of the transaction, when the people who were then remortgaged tried not only to draw an income from the investments, but to pay off the new mortgage, they found that the funds simply did not marry up.
I am well aware that there are some bona fide and useful home income plans on the market of which many retired people may wish to take advantage. I am talking particularly about a period when these plans were sold—sometimes deliberately—quite fraudulently. I want to draw attention to a group of pensioners with mortgages against the property in which they live. The vast majority of them no longer have any income from the original plan, and are in a situation where interest is accruing against the value of their property.
Many have been concerned that they will be turned out of their homes. In other such cases, the building societies or the lenders—it is mainly building societies—have said that they can remain in their homes. However, when they die, or if they have to move, the building society has first call on the value of the property. The matter has gone on for so long that the vast majority of those concerned are in a situation where if the house had to be sold and the capital realised, the mortgage would have to be repaid. The building society would then recoup the whole value of the property.
As people get older, this is an anxious situation for them. Before I was elected in 1992, some of those cases were brought to me. After I was elected, I had some satisfactory outcomes in one or two places with the help of the insurance ombudsman. In some cases, but not all, the underwriting attached to the new mortgage fell within the remit of the insurance ombudsman. In the early 1990s, he and his staff were extremely helpful to some of my elderly constituents.
I still have a batch of cases which fall into a particular category. A lady called Sonja Thompson, who resided in Devon—although she has a track record of living elsewhere—was brought to court on a charge of fraud. I have examined carefully the papers that she completed on behalf of my constituents in seeking to organise home income plans for them. There is no doubt in my mind that, although she was acquitted in the court case, it is as a result of her work that many of my constituents now find themselves in an anxious and difficult situation.
One of the problems has been that the building societies concerned appeared to take no notice of the lending parameters that are usually enforced when considering making a loan or offering a mortgage to someone. It was the norm for people such as Sonja Thompson to go to one particular branch of a building society because they had made contact with an individual member of staff—one assumes the management—in that branch. Given the volume of cases over a short period that were processed by a particular branch of a building society, one must question the role of the building societies.
In my constituency, the group of people who are left in this unhappy situation have mortgages primarily with the Britannia building society. I asked the Britannia building society to discuss the matter with me last year—which it did—and I was given a written pledge that my elderly

constituents would not be turned out of their homes simply because the interest on the mortgage was accruing at a rate much faster than any of them could hope to repay.
That is not a satisfactory situation, and there is a need for some examination of the role of building society branches. It is incumbent on the head offices of building societies—which have reputations that they would wish to uphold—to take more responsibility for examining the way in which their staff dealt with such cases.
At the moment, I have five constituents who live in a home that has always been their home, but which they feel no longer belongs to them. They are living there by grace and favour of the building society. They know that when they die, the proceeds from that home will not go to their children or heirs, but will be reclaimed, under law, by the building society concerned. We appreciate that building societies will not turn people out of their homes, but the justice of the case needs to be examined. Clearly, these elderly people were conned, fooled and—in some cases—quite deliberately defrauded into signing an agreement that they did not really understand.
In one case, I have seen copies of documentation that has been altered by the person writing the details of somebody's income. Building societies accepted case after case without any proper scrutiny, and without checking that the information was bona fide or that the people concerned could afford to take out a plan that was in their best interests. We must look to bring some pressure to bear on building societies to take responsibility for the actions of their own staff.
Many societies will say that mortgages do not come within the Financial Services Act 1986. I accept that, but that is not the point. A building society wants to know what one earns and how one will afford to repay a mortgage, as is right and proper. I have written to the Economic Secretary this month, as I feel that I have exhausted every avenue left to me through the ombudsman, the various other bodies and direct representations to building societies.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reiterate my request to the Economic Secretary to receive a delegation to talk this matter through. Some of these are complex cases, and solicitors have said that they would be happy to reintroduce some of them into the courts. However, there are difficulties because of the age of the client group. A solicitor to whom I spoke last week was willing to take the case on a no win, no fee basis, and he told me that he knows of barristers who are prepared to accept cases on the same basis. However, we must bear in mind the fact that we are talking about people who do not have a lot of money.
The problem that the solicitor has encountered has been with the Legal Aid Board. He told me of one couple, aged 82 and 79, with a total income of £137 a week. They would qualify for legal aid, but the Legal Aid Board requires them to pay £67 a month towards their legal aid costs. That is clearly prohibitive for people on a modest income, and even though the lawyers are prepared to proceed on a no win, no fee basis, the need to find £67 a month to qualify for legal aid is holding up the case.
Not all the cases are exactly the same. I have introduced the additional element of running a test case through the courts because if such a case is successfully prosecuted, many more could be resolved pretty rapidly. I stress that


the age of the people involved means that unless something is done quickly, even more of them will die without a satisfactory resolution.
Many hon. Members have dealt with many complex and difficult constituency cases. In the previous Parliament, we had an ad hoc all-party group that invited the building societies and everyone involved to come and meet us. I think that it was useful, although I do not know that we resolved any individual cases. Now is the time for individual action. We should call in the building societies to discuss their role, and consider how to get over the legal aid block.
Will the Minister endorse my application to the Economic Secretary? There are too many complexities for us to go into every individual case on the Floor of the House, but a meeting with the Economic Secretary and her officials, with appropriate representatives involved, would be of great assistance to my elderly constituents and those of many other hon. Members.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the House for having forgotten to declare an interest when I spoke. I am a vice-president and shareholder of Sheffield Wednesday, although I do not get paid. I intended to declare that earlier.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I want first to say one or two words about my late colleague, Derek Fatchett. I know that much has been said in the House following his untimely and tragic death two weeks ago, but I want to add to the generous comments made by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, by the shadow Foreign Secretary and by the new Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon).
When Derek's funeral took place on 14 May, there were well over 1,000 people at Leeds parish church—from all over the city of Leeds and from all walks of life, religions, races and backgrounds—who had come to pay tribute to a man who had served them very well indeed as a constituency Member of Parliament. Much has been said about his work in government, but let us not forget that he was a constituency Member for Leeds, Central for 16 years. He was a good friend of mine, and a mentor to me and to all the other Leeds Members who worked so closely with him.
I want to raise an issue that came to me through two of my constituents, a couple in late middle age with a daughter who is now in her mid-20s and who, sadly and for all sorts of complex reasons, went into prostitution. My constituency covers the area of Chapeltown, which is well known, unfortunately, for its link with prostitution. I stress that my constituent does not live in the area, but in another part of my constituency.
The couple who came to see me raised the issue not of prostitution itself, but of the pimps who make so much money in immoral earnings. Those pimps abuse the women who earn so much for them, and often steal their money and possessions to feed drug habits and expensive life styles, with fast cars and designer clothes. The women are made to suffer.
My constituents told me that their daughter's pimp, who must be typical of many throughout Leeds and the whole country, abused her, beat her and raped her. For all his violence towards her, it seems impossible to bring him to justice. When he is arrested after she has been beaten all night by him and his friends, she gives a statement to the police, but is forced to withdraw it because he sends his friends round. She is intimidated by his friends and allies, even while he is held in custody. The statement never sees the light of day in court, despite her bruises and the violence perpetrated against her.
The mother addressed a conference organised by the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, known as CROP. The names have been changed to protect those involved. She said:
Until she was thirteen, Frances was a quiet, shy, generous, gentle child. A sudden change came with her going to high school. She was blind drunk at thirteen, egged on by new acquaintances, truanting, absconding all night, getting stranded in Manchester, shoplifting and in trouble with the police. She might have come through such a phase as many do, but at this disturbed time she fell prey to Yosh. At the time we had little idea what was going on, no sense of where it might lead and so, no chance to do anything.
The mother continued:
With charm and presents—and sex and drugs—he laid siege to this vulnerable young girl with no obvious hard family protection … We were, however, also suspicious and one day when challenged she said that she could not tell me what she was actually doing which was acting as a courier for drugs. It is interesting that in the hierarchy of social problems, drugs are more respectable than prostitution. Prostitution is a complete taboo, and for years we could not talk about it to anyone, not even our close friends. It is too painful to think about your daughter's life having come to this.
My constituent said:
She has been raped, beaten, robbed and emotionally abused. She has lost her possessions, including money from her grandfather and any jewellery, her self worth and, most recently, she has lost the care of her adorable son …
Sometimes there were signs of hope. In 1995 she made a complaint to the police and Yosh was on remand for four months. It was wonderful to have him out of the way and we could sleep knowing that she was relatively safe. She had been assured, however, that if she made a statement others would come forward with corroborative evidence, but unfortunately apart from ourselves, no-one else completed what was needed. These cowardly men induce great fear and a sense of loyalty that seems to those outside quite incredible—and most frustrating! Eventually Frances was no longer able to live with the pressure that Yosh exerted from inside prison, both through phone calls and messages through his agents, male and female … she withdrew her statement … There is something wrong about a system of so-called justice that has to depend on the evidence of frightened vulnerable, essentially unprotected young women, it is not surprising that they often do not hold on through the inappropriately long delays in bringing a case to court. In addition, this episode highlighted another issue. One of Frances's friends was prepared to make a corroborative statement but on at least three occasions the police failed to keep an appointment with her,
so Yosh was released.
Yosh returned once again, demanding money, and Frances returned to prostitution because that was the only way of paying for his drugs and designer clothes. It is not just the life of this vulnerable young woman that has been ruined; her family has also been destroyed. Frances has no life: she lives alone in a house and is subject to emotional and physical violence from this man. She has nothing and she has nothing to look forward to.
We need to ensure that, when there is plenty of evidence against that kind of individual, cases are brought to justice quickly. People such as Yosh should be


prevented from exerting pressure on vulnerable young women from inside a jail. A distinct but important point emerges from this episode. When someone is charged with various offences, they should be heard together. A dismissal of some of the charges should certainly not result in release—especially when the majority of charges have been dropped because the complainant is afraid. There is a danger that this case will never come to court because Yosh again has an opportunity to reach those who have brought the charges against him. The fear, misery and destruction of vulnerable people will go unchecked.
I hope that, as a result of the points that I have made this morning, the Home Office will examine cases such as this involving not only the pimp, Yosh, and Frances, my constituent's daughter, but other vulnerable young women in the Chapeltown area of Leeds who are at the mercy of such individuals. I hope that the police will be able to gather the necessary evidence, and that the law will ensure that those people are brought to justice and removed from the lives of so many vulnerable people—especially women who have been abused.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to make a brief contribution to the debate this morning. Recess Adjournment debates provide an ideal opportunity for Back-Bench Members to raise constituency issues that it is difficult to discuss on other occasions. I raise this matter this morning on the advice of Madam Speaker. I have referred briefly at Question Time to the road infrastructure in my constituency, and particularly to the need for a dramatic improvement in the A523 road leading from Macclesfield to the village of Poynton.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is in his place and he will know precisely to what I refer. That road improvement, allied to the Poynton bypass and the Manchester airport eastern link road—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I refer also to the A6(M)—is absolutely essential to the on-going economic development and prosperity of my constituency and the surrounding areas, particularly those represented by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is not in his place.
I make a vigorous plea to the Government. I managed to get the Poynton bypass and allied road projects—the A523 road improvement and the Manchester airport eastern link road—included in a priority road programme in the last months of the Conservative Government in 1996–97. Unfortunately, one of the first acts of the new Labour Government was to remove that vital road project from the road improvement and construction programmes.
The second runway at Manchester airport received substantial support in my area on the basis that an appropriate road and transportation network would be constructed to service that runway and the huge increase in traffic and customers using Manchester International airport. I am sure that all hon. Members can appreciate the concern felt by my constituents, especially those who live in the villages of Poynton, Prestbury, Withinlee and Mottram St. Andrew. The relief that they thought would be provided by the construction of new roads has not come to pass, and those villages are being submerged under a huge volume of traffic.
Much of the traffic from east Cheshire to Manchester, and from the south-east of Macclesfield to Manchester, the airport and towards the M56 and the M6 uses those villages as rat runs. The environment of those villages is being undermined, eroded and I would even say destroyed. Some of those areas are really delightful. Properties are expensive and people pay a great deal of council tax. I believe that they deserve greater consideration than the Government are apparently affording them by removing those vital road improvement and construction projects from the road programme.
An event of considerable importance not just to my constituency and Manchester, but to the country as a whole, is the 2002 Commonwealth games. It is essential to ensure that the appropriate road infrastructure and transport and communications networks are in place to service those games. Such projects will be vital in the lead-up to the games and the new facilities will be used increasingly upon their conclusion. I make a special plea for the Government to consider those schemes as a matter of urgency. The south Manchester transportation module—I think that is what it is called; I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will correct me if I am wrong—must conclude its deliberations and consultations about those projects, and decisions must be taken urgently.
I am aware that the Government are seeking to transfer responsibility for those roads from the Highways Agency to the highway authority, Cheshire county council. If that is to be the Government's policy, I hope that they will allocate appropriate funds to Cheshire county council to enable the construction of what I would describe as strategic roads. They are part of the country's infrastructure. I am sure that every hon. Member will accept that Manchester International airport serves not only Manchester and its surrounding areas, but the whole country. There will be a huge increase in business when the second runway comes into operation in 18 months to two years. No roads will be built for five, six or seven years, even if the Government give the go-ahead in the near future. However, this is an urgent matter to which I hope the Minister will respond sympathetically.
The road projects are supported fully by Cheshire county council, Macclesfield borough council, Poynton with Worth parish council, local people, the chamber of commerce and enterprise and the large employers who generate so much wealth and so many jobs—Ciba Specialty Chemicals and Astra Zeneca, the pharmaceutical company. Many other companies are also urging the Government to act in this regard.
I turn now to one or two other matters that need to be raised, and on the first—developments in the health service—I make a particular plea about the East Cheshire NHS trust. I understand that there may be changes in the health service and that where community and mental health services are currently part of a united trust, they may well be separated. My area has one trust that deals with everything within the national health service, including community health, mental health and acute services.
The East Cheshire NHS trust is highly successful and efficient, and very well regarded by general practitioners, who look to the hospital to provide all the services and specialties. It has an excellent chairman in Mr. Peter Hayes, a fine executive board and non-executive directors who reflect the interests of the whole area. It would be a


total waste of Money to separate services from that trust, thus duplicating or triplicating the bureaucracy and costs of managing the health service. If separation took place, the trust would be a less viable proposition.
I have represented Macclesfield for 28 years, and its people feel immense loyalty to the local hospital. I put down a marker that I hope that where an area is keen to retain a united, single trust covering all NHS services which has proved to be successful, it will be able to do so.
Finally, I turn briefly to building societies, particularly mutual building societies. The Cheshire building society, which is based in my constituency, is excellent. It is Macclesfield's own; its head office is in Castle street, in the centre of the town. I got my mortgages from that building society. Another, the Vernon building society, is just outside my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. That is also a highly popular, regional building society which does an excellent job. It is competitive and well run, as is the Cheshire building society.
A few people, however, seek to manipulate the market by buying into those building societies and then trying to turn them into a bank, which is not in the best long-term interests of the investors or those who borrow from the building societies. I am interested to note that a Liberal Democrat Member has, in the past day or so, tabled early-day motion 681, which says:
That this House urges the Government, in the interests of equity, to consider raising the percentage of borrowers needed to support conversion or take-over of building societies to 75 per cent., on a minimum 50 per cent. turnout, to bring them into line with the criteria required for savers, recognising the long-term interest of borrowers in the future of their society.
I have corresponded with the Government on that matter, and they are concerned, but they do not know exactly how to deal with it without, perhaps, in some way distorting the free market. However, I believe that the proposals in early-day motion 681 would be ideal. I say that as a Conservative Member who believes in the free market, but I believe also that the mutual building society movement has done a magnificent job for many decades, servicing those who want to buy houses and providing sensible, rational investment opportunities for those who want to put their money into them and receive a fair return.
I hope that the growing concern in all parts of the House about a few people who want to earn a quick buck and who have no interest in the building society movement will prompt the Government to take the matter seriously, and to limit the takeover of building societies and their conversion into banks.
I am grateful to have had this opportunity to speak. I hope that action will be taken on the road projects in my area which impact on adjoining constituencies. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle fully support my remarks. I hope that the Government will respond and that even if the Minister cannot himself give a substantive reply, he will ensure that the matter is passed on to the appropriate Minister and the necessary response made.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I should like to associate myself entirely with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the mutual building society movement. I am sure that his views are shared by Members in all parts of the House.
The matter that I would like to raise appertains to a subject that is not only close to the interests of my constituents but, is of national importance. That matter is the Essex and Southend-on-Sea replacement structure plan, but, before eyes glaze over, I point out that beneath that tranquillising title are some important issues that affect the lives of not only my constituents, but those of other right hon. and hon. Members.
Taken at its most simple level, the structure plan deals with, among other matters, housing need and allocation in the county of Essex and the borough of Southend-on-Sea, and covers the years from 1996 to 2011. The initial plan identified certain potential growth areas in the Al2 corridor. The Al2 runs out of London towards the east coast and passes through or by Chelmsford and Colchester. It also runs through my constituency, which is between those two towns.
The identification of that corridor as an area for growth caused considerable consternation not only for Braintree district council but for Chelmsford and Colchester because the road is not sufficient for the traffic now on it, without adding substantially to the housing in that part of Essex. Following representations to that effect, which were supported by the strangely named GOER—the Government office for the eastern region—that aspect was withdrawn from the structure plan.
The plan has now been released, and the panel will inspect and receive representations, and therein lies the concern of my constituents and people from other towns and districts in central and north Essex. The inspectors on the panel have an ominously named matter No. 4, on potential strategic development locations. Amazingly, in the light of the history of this matter, those locations are Chelmsford; Hatfield Peverel, Witham and Rivenhall in my constituency; Colchester; the western side of Tendring, and Uttlesford. Four of those places are in or adjacent to the A12 corridor.
Those who have been invited to make representations to the panel include developers who have already expressed a strong interest in green-field site development on the western and north-eastern sides of the town of Witham and the eastern side of the village of Hatfield Peverel. The proposals for housing allocation on pure green-field sites could add as many as 10,000 new dwellings to those being built in or close to my constituency. Another area of concern is further north in my constituency, abutting the constituency of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), in or near to the village of Feering. All those locations are prized by developers as locations for mini towns or expanded villages.
The district of Braintree, which was created in 1974 following one of the periodic local government reviews, was allocated 10,300 dwellings for the period between 1996 and 2011. My district council assures me that all those dwellings are already built, planning-consent granted or identified except for 1,150. I am assured by my local authority officers that sites for those remaining dwellings can readily be found, and that, indeed, some of them will be brown-field sites.
The investigation of green-field sites adjacent to existing settlements under matter No. 4 makes the equation an entirely new one, going way beyond what was previously contemplated. If the district requires only


1,100 new dwellings, why are we considering debating and taking evidence from those who say that we should have in excess of 10,000 dwellings?
Save for the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), hon. Members may not be entirely familiar with some of the villages and towns that I have mentioned. One of the proposed developments is west of the town of Witham, which was a market town in the 1960s and 1970s, taking to itself what was then called London overspill. The building of houses in Witham at that time was entirely linked to employment; hand in hand with that development went the growth of an industrial estate to provide employment for those going to the town. These new proposals are purely speculative and will result in more and more commuting to and from Witham, Hatfield Peverel and other villages near the railway line to London.
I am concerned about this matter—I am sure that other hon. Members have similar difficulties in their constituencies—because it seems to fly in the face of our concepts of housing development and location. I try to avoid as much as I can the strange languages adopted by those in public affairs, which include such terms as "hierarchies", but I understand that if there is a hierarchy in development, it starts with brown-field sites and, only at the very last, occurs on a green-field site. Another notion, that has great merit is that of integration—integrated transport policy, for example. As I understand that, it must surely integrate with housing requirements.
There is no obvious employment need for this housing in the middle of north Essex. The road system and structure is beyond capacity at the present time. Save for the Witham and Hatfield Peverel link road, which I was pleased to be able to put before the House soon after I was elected, and which the Government approved, there are no major schemes for improving that section of road. Yet developers appear to wish to destroy what in many ways is idyllic countryside. Some who do not come from the eastern counties might not take such a poetic view as those of us who do about the scenery of that part of England. Parts of the areas that I have described are completely unspoilt countryside, which should be preserved in any event and not earmarked for speculative development.
I hope that the Minister and, indeed, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), the Opposition spokesman, will concur with my view that the Government and local authorities must be ever vigilant in staying with our principles on housing, transport and employment development, and that we should not be led along to build in areas where it is easy to build, and, in so doing, destroy our heritage and create innumerable problems for us and those who come after us.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I assure the House that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I are not colluding in this debate. It is fair to say that we relish the political differences between us, despite sharing membership of two Select Committees and a constituency boundary. However, even without collusion, we have reached the same conclusion.
To make it an all-party plea, I very much support the hon. Gentleman's words about the Cheshire building society in his constituency and the Vernon building

society in Stockport in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will be able not only to say warm words but to give some indication of positive action on that issue. I do not discount the fact that the Government have made some helpful moves, although, as we have seen with rogue shareholders in ballots, to whom the hon. Member for Macclesfield referred, such moves have not been sufficient to damp down pressure on such building societies.
The more urgent issues for my constituents relate to transport and the environment. Again, I very much sign up to the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, although I should correct him on one point. It may help the Minister to know that the study to which the hon. Gentleman referred is called the multimodal study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester—superb gobbledegook.
My constituents are astonished to find that they live in the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester—I am sure that the residents of Macclesfield would be even more astonished to discover that they do so. This multimodal study is the replacement offered to me and my constituents for the necessary transport infrastructure to deal not just with today's congestion and difficulties but that which we can reasonably predict as a result of the expansion of Manchester airport.
The second runway at Manchester airport is under construction. I live in a house that backs on to a freight line on which every night a trainload of stone travels from the quarries of Derbyshire to the runway. I am grateful to the Government for arranging a rail freight grant to enable that; I do not mind my house shaking gently as the trains go by. The number of passengers at Manchester airport is expected to rise from 16 million a year to 30 million a year in three years' time. Manchester airport is of course also a substantial freight airport in its own right, so there may be further expansion in that area, too.
As a result, there will be a tremendous increase in road traffic going to the airport. The airport has an integrated transport plan. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). I shall not comment on the Essex countryside, but when it comes to integrated transport, we know a thing or two about its absence in Greater Manchester, just as they do in Essex. The airport plans to receive 50 per cent. of passengers on public transport, which is excellent. However, if the number of passengers doubles, the number of road users will increase immeasurably regardless of the doubling of the number of passengers who use public transport.
There are several park-and-ride car parks for the airport in my constituency. Therefore, some of those who travel to the airport by public transport go by car to my constituency, park their cars and then take a bus or coach. So, for my constituents, it is something of a joke to be told, "Don't worry, half the new passengers will go to the airport by public transport."
I should like to link the pressure not just of existing commuter traffic but of the growth of the airport to the wider issue of the absence of an integrated transport policy.
The Government have made some tactical moves to improve public transport, but have not produced the strategic overview that we need. For example, they have made available rural bus grants—in my constituency, the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive is


taking advantage of those grants—but the grants have some unworkable restrictions. Half of a rural bus route must be on a derestricted road. None of the route can be on the route of an existing bus service. Our new rural bus services make long detours up and over Werneth Low and down country lanes in order to achieve the 50 per cent. qualification for the rural bus grant. The links between the communities are needed. On the whole, my constituency consists of hilltop communities with river valleys running between, but it is not sensible for the bus to dodge in and out of the river valleys to get the rural bus grant.
We have 40-year-old trains on our commuter lines, and there is no sign yet that North Western Trains—which now calls itself First North West—is able or willing to provide the investment that is needed.
On the specifics of these issues, which affect my constituents, and on the wider national stage there seems to be a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments and Ministers. I shall briefly draw attention to two other issues. I have mentioned the problem with transport policy. Road schemes have been cancelled and more reviews are taking place. The Labour Government have produced a weight of reviews and consultation documents on the environment and on transport which far outweighs anything that the Conservatives did. I do mean outweighs—it is a substantial volume of paper. However, there are not yet any clear policies leading to development of strategies that would help.
I have talked about road cancellation. Fuel duty has increased and there are proposals for an energy tax. I have my rural bus routes, I have my old trains; I have not got my roads, and the airport is opening. The situation cries out for co-ordinated Government action.
Transport is not the only environmental issue on which there is discontinuity between Government Departments. I am thinking of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry and, to an extent, the Treasury.
When I complain about that, everyone that I talk to—civil servants, pressure groups, even Ministers—tells me that co-ordination is better than it has ever been. That makes me grateful, for the first time, that I was not in the House previously, when, apparently, the integration of thinking was even worse.
We have some classics with energy—an area on which I keep a careful eye in the House. For instance, the Department of Trade and Industry is promoting renewables and trying to ensure that there are more wind farms, but, surprisingly enough, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is turning down planning applications for wind farms in great numbers. I understand that the proportion of wind farms rejected by Government inspectors is higher than that of takeaway food shops similarly rejected. That is hard to believe.
There are problems regarding other environmental issues. In relation to the achievement of the carbon emission reductions required by the Kyoto agreement to avoid climate change, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is being the good guy and the Department of Trade and Industry is not. Discussions on the reconstruction of the electricity pool system are likely to result in squeezing out of the market those who produce renewable energy and combined heat and power.
I ask the Minister to listen carefully to the local constituency pleas that are being made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield and myself, and to be aware that these local issues are indicative of a wider issue. We like the consultation documents, and it is great to be asked, but please may we have some decisions—some action? A multimodal study for the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester is no substitute for a decent strategic road system.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate. I know that hon. Members have been quite brief, but I have much to say today, so I apologise in advance. I shall try to finish as quickly as I can.
I wish to use this opportunity to highlight issues affecting the spending profile, performance and abilities of one of the local authorities in my constituency—Redcar and Cleveland borough council—resulting from the present operation of the revenue support grant, the standard spending assessment and the national non-domestic rate.
Initially, I shall say a few words about the social and economic background of the community for which the council is responsible. Then I shall comment on matters affecting the SSA and the revenue support grant for the council. In doing so, I want to make some suggestions for change in the context of the present review of the revenue support grant arrangements—suggestions which I hope chime with the recent report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.
I have been galvanised to raise that matter in this place today by the operation of the present formula, which has caused the critical barrier of £1,000 for local band D property to be broken in the borough in the current financial year. Paying a bill of £1,000 is a serious matter, but it is a far more serious matter if one must pay such a bill in an area where there is continuing high unemployment and poverty, and where, as a result of social demography and trends, the local authority is simply running up a downcoming escalator.
Let us consider some of the facts about Redcar and Cleveland. In 1984, there were 44,000 people in work in the borough area, but in 1996—the last year for which we have proper figures—there was a reduction in the employment base of 10.5 per cent. Of the adult population, 42.8 per cent. are economically inactive, and long-term unemployment, at 26.6 per cent. of registered unemployment, is rather high.
Despite all the work of regeneration agencies, there is still little evidence of independent entrepreneurship being able to change these figures. Customs and Excise figures from the VAT registration figures show low levels of new company formation.
A low level of economic activity and a history of working lives in unhealthy and dangerous conditions in shipyards, steel mills and mines leave an indelible stain on the fabric of local society. People are simply more liable to ill-health in my constituency. Sixteen per cent. of local people are seen as suffering from persistent health problems, against an average for England and Wales of 13 per cent. The morbidity ratio is 127 against a national average of 100.
People die earlier, too. The average standardised mortality ratio for Redcar and Cleveland is 115 against the average of 100 for England and Wales. I stress that these are averages for the borough as a whole; in some wards, the figures are far, far higher.
Low car ownership impairs mobility; 37.8 per cent. of local households have no car. That is a real problem, leading to social isolation on many of the borough estates and far-flung industrial villages.
Not surprisingly, there is a high level of dependency on welfare benefits. Twenty-three per cent. of households depend on income support, and 34 per cent. of the child population is being brought up in households where a weekly giro is the only cash lifeline available.
The index of local deprivation—an official measure, to which I shall return— sums up graphically what it means to live in the borough of Redcar and Cleveland. It is ranked as the forty-third most deprived borough in England, with 13.5 per cent. of its population in the worst 10 per cent. of all electoral wards in the country. It is simple, then, to see the scale of the problems that face my local authority—stupendous problems across the whole spectrum of service delivery.
Poverty and unemployment have an impact on schools. It is harder to motivate children whose life expectations are formed by the unemployment that has affected their parents, and possibly their elder siblings, too. It is far harder to teach children who come to school with empty stomachs, which is one reason why there is an initiative to give our children a school breakfast.
Sickness, ageing and debility have a heavy impact on the personal social services, and more than physical sickness is involved; there is a wealth of evidence linking poverty and unemployment with mental distress, failed relationships and broken homes. Human beings affected by those ills need a lot of help, delivered over a long period.
Demography also has an impact on the social services in areas such as mine, where there is a significant population loss as younger people move out in search of better opportunities elsewhere. That means that there are more elderly people isolated from family support, who need additional local authority help and support if they are to maintain their independence.
Poverty also has an impact on other aspects of local authority services. Where many people live on credit, the need for good trading standards and money advice services is paramount. People have to buy food cheaply, so the need for good environmental health protection is obvious.
Good partnerships are being built up with all the agencies within the borough, so that those problems can be tackled jointly. We need good relationships with the local health authorities so that ill health and health inequalities can be fought. We also need good relationships with the local universities, training and enterprise councils and colleges, so that lifelong learning can become a reality, and with the local business community, so that local industry can be competitive and meet the challenge of the coming millennium.
However, Redcar and Cleveland is being starved of the resources to deal effectively with those issues and to contribute more meaningfully to those partnerships. The impact of the standard spending assessment is totally negative.
That brings me to the second part of what I have to say: the revenue support grant needs-based formula does not reflect actual need. I merely need to point out that, under the health formula, Redcar and Cleveland's notional SSA per head, at £917, is below the £964 per head allocated to the neighbouring authority of Middlesbrough, a borough dealing with exactly the same problems.
Our £917 is dwarfed by the sum of £1,152 currently awarded to Westminster council, and by the £2,972 per head awarded to the City of London and adjoining districts. I do not dispute that there is social need in the inner city, or that the impact of a large non-resident working population has to be taken into account—but I must point out the sheer scale of the differences between the high unemployment, ill health and social isolation of the string of small ex-mining villages in my constituency, and the job and life style opportunities afforded by living in, or on the fringes of, one of the most vigorous labour markets in western Europe. The gap is enormous.
I will not go into detail about all the anomalies within the formula as it relates to elements of spending within the borough council, but I will highlight a couple of them. It is absurd that a council with a widespread pattern of settlements and towns, with the consequent need to keep the highway network up to scratch to maintain social cohesion, has been awarded £2 million less per annum for highway maintenance than the nearby town of Middlesbrough.
There is a very silly anomaly in the formula for salting and gritting snowed-up roads, which could only have come from "Yes Minister". It seems that Redcar and Cleveland has a low weighting under that formula, which is rather odd, as much of the borough is hilly and borders on high moorland. Indeed, in old Norse, Cleveland means "land of cliffs". However, the weather station on which the formula is based is outside the borough in Whitby, nearly 20 miles away, which is warmer and lower. That is not much comfort to a motorist stuck in a snowdrift.
There is more to come. When I am trying to assist constituents who are angry and perplexed about the closure of our neighbourhood library, it does not help to learn that Redcar and Cleveland has been awarded less in the environmental and cultural block than any other unitary authority in the former county of Cleveland. Indeed, it receives less than the average for all unitary authorities.
There are other absurdities. A key element in the distribution formula is the number of flats in a local authority area. That means that a borough such as Redcar and Cleveland, in which past generations of town planners, architects and housing specialists avoided the quick fix of building high-rises, and chose traditional terraces—the houses that people wanted—is penalised in comparison with those who took the alternative course.
I would like some of the experts from Eland house to explain why a poor family living in a poorly maintained street-level house is less deserving than a family living in the same circumstances on the third or fourth floor of a block of flats in a neighbouring authority. That is a riddle worth solving. They could explain, too, why the same


formula means that wealthy towns on the sunny south coast can benefit when their stocks of expensive privately rented penthouses and flats are assessed.
Such bizarre examples mean that Redcar and Cleveland, like many authorities, has to spend far more than its SSA if it is to deliver the services that local people demand and deserve. Such councils run slap into the gearing problems that face any authority that spends more than the nominal level. They also face the disbelief of local people, who see the contradiction of common sense presented by a constantly rising council tax combined with cuts in services.
The non-domestic rate has also hit the borough. Despite unemployment, heavy industry is still a pervasive part of the local economy—a pattern of industry which often has an adverse impact on the resident population. To say that is not to be anti-industry, and both the local council and I recognise the vital contribution that our steel and chemical industries make to both the local and the national economy, and we work with them to assist their competitiveness and vitality.
None the less, the council still has to manage the environmental and visual impact, and the effects on the highways, which it does through air pollution monitoring, maintaining a proactive planning department, and constant upkeep of the highway network.
Our local industries are big contributors to the national non-domestic rate pool. The borough collects £41.5 million to pay into that pool, but gets only £35.5 million back. That means that the council exports £6 million to other parts of the country—money which helps to keep down council taxes in other areas, which may be far wealthier than Redcar and Cleveland, and whose local population and local councils would violently resist any thought that their district, too, was a potential site for new large-scale chemical or metal processing plants.
I am pleased that the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee has recommended that the business rate return to local control and determination. I hope that the Government are considering that idea seriously, and I shall make one practical suggestion that may override the resistance from the local business community.
Local businesses expect services from local authorities, exactly as any house owner or tenant would, so why can the local business rate not be ring-fenced? That could pay for the services from which industry expects to benefit—a good planning service, a good environmental health service, a good highways maintenance programme and a well funded economic development department. Those activities could be wholly or partly underpinned by a local business rate. I do not mean that Redcar and Cleveland, or any council, should expect the Government simply to write out a cheque.
My local authority has been carrying out a modernisation programme. Local councils have set up a full, rigorous process of peer group evaluation. They must accept a full, in-depth and no-holds-barred examination of their systems, procedures and methods of working. They will be expected to show convincingly that they are in touch with the electorate, and that they have built up robust and meaningful partnerships with other actors on the social stage. Their internal methods of political operation must be relevant to today's world, not yesterday's smoke-filled committee rooms.
I have raised many serious issues concerning services and providers. That work must be part of a two-way bargain between central Government and the local council, between Whitehall and Redcar and Cleveland's town hall. I urge my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government and Housing to examine carefully the council's financial position. I hope that I will receive support from the Front Bench today.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Richard Spring: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the important issue of tourism in Cornwall. Many representations have been made to me about the eclipse that is about to take place and its effect on tourist activity there.
On 11 August, there will be a total eclipse in a corner of Devon and right across Cornwall. The rest of the country, by contrast, will experience only a partial eclipse. This is an important moment in the life of Cornwall and its all-important tourist industry.
The eclipse will take place in the middle of the tourist season, and Cornwall is perhaps more dependent on tourism for its revenues than any other part of the country. Cornwall is less prosperous than the rest of England, measured by gross domestic product per capita or in employment terms—hence its success in obtaining objective 1 status.
Unfortunately, there has been ridiculous and damaging hysteria connected with the eclipse and its effect on tourism, with lurid tales of traffic gridlock, food shortages and overcrowding. In the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 25 November 1998, that was all graphically described. Talk of tourists being fleeced, hordes of journalists and amateur astronomers arriving, and water purification and distribution problems have led to press comment that has been deeply damaging to the crucial tourist industry in the county and for the entire United Kingdom in the run-up to the millennium celebration.
In south-east Cornwall, bookings are down by 30 per cent. so far for the entire season. The Cornwall tourist board has told me that in respect of eclipse bookings to date, the percentage of hotels with accommodation still available are Newquay 60 per cent., Falmouth 16 per cent., Padstow 31 per cent. and Looe 37 per cent.
Speaking on behalf of the self-catering industry, which is vital throughout the United Kingdom, Alice Mumford from Canonstown, near Hayle, described the situation in these terms:
Self-catering has been vary badly hit by the hysteria surrounding the eclipse week. The knock-on effect of all this has meant that people are staying away for the whole summer. It has definitely affected us—we are way down on last year—I would say roughly 50 per cent.
Last year, she obtained eight weeks of bookings from advertising in the national press. So far this year, regrettably, she has had none. Incidentally, she lives directly under the path of the eclipse.
On 24 May, The Times carried an article about the matter. It told us, for example, how farmers who had set up campsites to cope with hundreds of thousands of


visitors are now facing huge losses. We already know about the terrible state of agriculture in the UK, which has arisen particularly in the past two years.
The west country has traditionally been a major holiday area. The West Country tourist board tells me that one in six tourists come in August—the very month in which the eclipse will take place. The area's reputation is fully deserved. According to the latest Cornwall holiday survey, 35 per cent. of respondents stated that they were fully satisfied with the provision of tourist services in the county. The tourist industry in Cornwall is in most cases operated by small businesses. They are already suffering from the imposition by the Labour Government, egged on by their Liberal Democrat friends, of a whole raft of job-destroying and additional cost measures, including the working time directive, the part-time workers directive and the parental leave directive. Those impose huge additional burdens on an industry whose umbrella organisation, the English tourist board, has had its marketing function axed by the Government.
The fact is that tourists will not be fleeced in Cornwall. Extensive and comprehensive arrangements have been put in place to minimise any problems that may arise. Such arrangements do not include the crackpot ideas such as visitors road taxes that have apparently been advanced by some local councillors. There is a Cornwall county eclipse planning co-ordinator, Gage Williams, who is heading the contingency arrangements.
The Highways Agency already has a helpline in place. Two million explanatory leaflets are shortly going out to all motorway service centres throughout the country. A comprehensive traffic plan has been devised by the police, Devon and Cornwall county councils, the Highways Agency and the emergency planning services to keep the traffic moving not only in Cornwall, but on the approach to Cornwall during August in particular.
I am told by Steve Winston, the county emergency planning officer, that there will be a test run this weekend. A number of minor diversionary routes will be created with one-way traffic flows at such congestion spots as the village of Dobwalls, to get greater movement along the key A38 arterial route.
The Highways Agency is putting in more CCTV cameras along the A30 and A38 and feeder roads. There will be a contingency centre based in Cornwall, with information fed in from Devon and elsewhere. The information plan extends right up the A5 and beyond. Trafficmasters will help the police control and monitor traffic movements. So-called minutemen will be available at the time of the eclipse to help with possible breakdowns of cars. Electronic signboards will be fully operational. In other words, comprehensive measures are in place for any additional major congestion. If, indeed, the figure of more than a million people in the county in August is realised—almost twice the usual population—the matter looks clearly in hand in contingency planning terms.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spring: I should like to complete my comments. Cornwall remains one of the great jewels of the British Isles. It would be tragic if the negative comments about

the effects of the eclipse damaged the hugely important tourist industry in Cornwall and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tyler: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech outside the Chamber, and I am grateful to him for giving way. Is he aware that the control of the county council is not in the hands of the Liberal Democrats? It is in the hands of an all-party alliance, including members of his own party. The instructions given to the gentleman to whom he referred were given on an all-party basis. I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but he is making an unworthy speech by making a party point.

Mr. Spring: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to a word that I said. I have made no critical reference to the county council. I have made no critical reference to any Liberal Democrats or anyone else. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the speech. It is appalling that he should come in and introduce party politics into the matter, which is nothing of the kind. Had the hon. Gentleman been here at the beginning of my remarks, he would have heard me speaking about the concerns that have been expressed about tourism in Cornwall during August because of the eclipse. I very much regret the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
In conclusion, it is about time that a positive message was sent out about Cornwall and the eclipse. It would be good if all hon. Members from Cornwall could help the tourist industry there by projecting a positive image and message, as I have tried to do this morning. That would be welcome to their constituents and the entire country. The message needs to be heard loud and clear.

11 am

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to express vehement opposition to the proposal to use ground troops in Kosovo. In particular, a substantive motion ought to be debated by the House of Commons before any decision is taken on the matter. It is simply not the case that there is no such precedent, because substantive motions were tabled on the Falklands and Iraq.
My specific question is, how is it proposed to conduct such a campaign? The port of Piraeus will not be available to us, if the mayor of Athens is to be believed, and not a finger will be lifted by any dock worker in that port to transport supplies or personnel to a war in Kosovo. The railwaymen and others of Thessaloniki have made it abundantly clear that that port will not be available for our use. I ask a straight question: is it true, as military pundits have said, that, without the availability of Thessaloniki as a port, it would be impossible to sustain a military engagement in Kosovo for more than a fortnight?
Furthermore, precisely how is it proposed to conduct such a campaign? Macedonia has made it clear that it will not act as a springboard for an offensive against neighbours with whom Macedonians will have to live in the coming centuries. The Hungarians have the problem of 350,000 ethnic Hungarians living in northern Yugoslavia, on whom retribution could be wreaked. As for Albania, what consideration has been given to the inadequate facilities of the port of Durres and to the fact that the roads peter out into dirt tracks near the Kosovo border? Furthermore, there are 6,000 ft high mountains.


Before any decision is made—and if any decision is to be made during the recess, Parliament ought to be recalled—a thorough explanation of what we are up to should be given to the House of Commons. It is entitled to that.
On this day, when India has threatened an air strike against rebel peoples, as it puts it, and has defied Pakistan to interfere, I can remark only that, once people embark on the kind of action on which we have embarked in Yugoslavia, it can be catching. I ask for the Government's reflections on the report of Lieutenant-General Satish Nambiar, the head of mission of the United Nations forces deployed in the former Yugoslavia between 1992 and 1993. He is a former deputy chief of staff of the Indian army and is currently director of the United Services Institution of India.
Lieutenant-General Nambiar says:
My year long experience as the Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Forces deployed in the former Yugoslavia has given me an understanding of the fatal flaws of US/NATO policies in the troubled region. It was obvious to most people following the events in the Balkans since the beginning of the decade, and particularly after the fighting that resulted in the emergence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, that Kosovo was a 'powder keg' waiting to explode. The West appears to have learnt all the wrong lessons from the previous wars and applied it to Kosovo.
Lieutenant-General Nambiar makes four points. First, he says:
Portraying the Serbs as evil and everybody else as good was not only counterproductive but also dishonest. According to my experience all sides were guilty but only the Serbs would admit that they were no angels while the others would insist that they were. With 28,000 forces under me and with constant contacts with UNHCR and the International Red Cross officials, we did not witness any genocide beyond killings and massacres on all sides that are typical of such conflict conditions. I believe none of my successors and their forces saw anything on the scale claimed by the media.
I should like to hear a comment on that.
Lieutenant-General Nambiar's second point is that it
was obvious to me that if Slovenians, Croatians and Bosnians had the right to secede from Yugoslavia, then the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia had an equal right to secede. The experience of partitions in Ireland and India has not been pleasant but in the Yugoslavia case, the state had already been taken apart anyway. It made little sense to me that if multiethnic Yugoslavia was not tenable that multiethnic Bosnia could be made tenable. The former internal boundaries of Yugoslavia which had no validity under international law should have been redrawn when it was taken apart by the West, just as it was in the case of Ireland in 1921 and Punjab and Bengal in India in 1947. Failure to acknowledge this has led to the problem of Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia.
Lieutenant-General Nambiar's third point is that it
is ironic that the Dayton Agreement on Bosnia was not fundamentally different from the Lisbon Plan drawn up by Portuguese Foreign Minister Cutilheiro and the British representative Lord Carrington to which all three sides had agreed before any killings had taken place, or even the Vance-Owen Plan which Karadzic was willing to sign. One of the main problems was that there was an unwillingness on the part of the American administration to concede that Serbs had legitimate grievances and rights. I recall State Department official George Kenny turning up like all other American officials, spewing condemnations of the Serbs for aggression and genocide. I offered to give him an escort and to go see for himself that none of what he proclaimed was true. He accepted my offer and thereafter he made a radical turnaround. Other Americans continued to see and hear what they wanted to see and hear from one side, while ignoring the other side. Such behaviour does not produce peace but more conflict.

Lieutenant-General Nambiar makes a final point. He says:
I felt that Yugoslavia was a media-generated tragedy. The Western media sees international crises in black and white, sensationalizing incidents for public consumption. From what I can see now, all Serbs have been driven out of Croatia and the Muslim-Croat Federation, I believe almost 850,000 of them. And yet the focus is on 500,000 Albanians (at last count) who have been driven out of Kosovo. Western policies have led to an ethnically pure Greater Croatia, and an ethnically pure Muslim statelet in Bosnia. Therefore, why not an ethnically pure Serbia? Failure to address these double standards has led to the current one.
The Indian view—that of a man who had first-hand experience—at least ought to be reflected on before we embark on the folly of starting a ground war, the result of which can be known to none of us.

Mr. David Amess: I wish to raise a number of points before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess, but first I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. Following our previous debate—and unlike some Ministers who say that they will write to hon. Members, although we never hear from them—he wrote to me on every subject. I am grateful for that and if he does the same again this time, I should be delighted. However, I should be grateful if he tried to get some information on the final point that I shall raise.
I enjoy the history and tradition of this place, although that enjoyment is not shared by everyone, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on organising the banquet which will celebrate the 900th anniversary of Westminster Hall. The first recorded great event held there was the Whitsuntide banquet of 1099, which was attended by William II, who was known as William Rufus. I understand that the event has been organised by the all-party arts and heritage group. It is a wonderful idea. There has not been a banquet in the hall since the coronation of George IV in 1821, although a lunch was served there for the Queen shortly after her coronation.
It is in that connection that I take this opportunity to say that the House's decision on Monday to devalue this Chamber further was a disaster. I stood in despair as I watched hon. Members vote. I am totally opposed to what has been proposed. Some people patronisingly remind me of what was said about Select Committees. However, in the same way that I believe that the decision to televise our proceedings was disastrous and devalued this place, I think that it is utterly ridiculous to have a second Chamber. The House will come to regret it.
On the same patriotic note, and given the way in which the United Kingdom has been broken up, increasingly I think that St. George's day—a subject that in some respects is a little controversial—should become a national holiday.
The Minister will not be surprised by my second point. It concerns the Palace theatre in Westcliff-on-Sea, about which I am sure that the House awaits a report. Sadly, it is still closed. I and my constituents are not at all happy about that. When I telephoned the theatre's support group, I was told that the theatre's board has been seeking bids to run the theatre, either as a package or in small, franchised pieces. The latter option would involve, for example, running the bar as a separate business.
Apparently, the decision is to go for one company to run the lot. Several companies have been spoken to, and an announcement of which will run the theatre will be made. However, the support group feels that time to organise the Christmas pantomime—which I understand will be entitled "The Labour Government Since I May 1997"—is running short. However, lottery officials are to visit my constituency, and all interested parties can turn up to find out whether extra money will be available. I hope that I will soon be able to report that the Palace theatre has reopened.
My third point concerns the organisation representing the combined Irish regiments. At my last constituency surgery, a very important person in that organisation came to see me. I shall not name him, as he does not want any publicity, but the April edition of that organisation's journal stated:
The M.O.D. has decided to seek the sale of the Duke of York's Headquarters which is government property and … within a year or two the Regiment's period here, begun in 1912, may come to an end.
It adds that the council of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea—"and others"—is entirely opposed to the sale. I have received a letter stating that
this unique and historic Headquarters is home to a number of famous London Territorial Army Units, some of which have been there since the turn of the century, and have gone off to Two World Wars from there.
To allow the site to be sold, just to realise"—
money—
from commercial developers, would be an act of extreme folly and would deal a tremendous blow to the morale of the Territorial Army. The start-up costs of transferring Units out of the Headquarters to smaller, overcrowded premises should be seriously considered and this move out will certainly have a serious effect on the recruiting and retention of TA soldiers.
This is a serious matter. I am horrified to learn that, so far, two rooms in north London have been offered as a replacement for the headquarters. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those soldiers. I know that the Government are trying to save money, by redeploying forces and selling off property, but this treatment is appalling. I hope that the Government will do something about the problem. If they cannot, perhaps a wealthy benefactor exists locally who will save the property.
My fourth point has to do with the Consumers Association. At a splendid reception here, the association's key message was that the
right to secure adequate redress in cases of maladministration or inadequate service provision has long been regarded as a key consumer principle.
As Members of Parliament, we are used to people coming to us with all manner of complaints. I naively hoped that the citizens charter would be a cheap way to get redress for such complaints, as it costs a huge amount of money to have recourse to law. People groan when the working classes are mentioned, but the question of redress is very important for those on low incomes. They want to know to whom they can complain when discussions with the supplier, institution or body involved fail.
I support the Consumers Association, which considers that a comprehensive list should be available to the general public that would include the names of the

relevant ombudsmen. Such a list should be available in post offices, libraries, local authority offices and so on. To their credit, many companies already give such information to customers, but not all do. All utilities and public services should be included in such a list. The feedback would benefit consumers and suppliers, and reduce considerably the work load of Members of Parliament. Technically, after 1 May 1997, hon. Members have been very enthusiastic about being here, but now it seems that they cannot wait to get away.
My fifth point concerns the disabled. I shall speak not about the shambles on the Government Benches last week that led to the Government's majority being reduced to 40, but about the problems caused by the requirement for medical examinations. I am sick to death of people who are clearly unwell coming to my surgery and complaining about the medicals that they have to undergo. They are humiliated by the experience, and often lose their benefits.
I am not a doctor—there are any number of doctors among all the other experts in the House—but any fool could see that the people who come to me are unfit and clearly suffer from a range of disabilities, such as ME. They are not fiddling the benefits system.

Mr. David Hanson: The Conservative Government set up the system.

Mr. Amess: The Government Whip, from a sedentary position, says that the previous Conservative Government are to blame, but, for more than two years, we have had a Labour Government who said that everything would be different. If the Government do not like the present system, they can forget all that hogwash about working with the amounts of money already committed and change the system.
My constituents believe that the Government are trying to save money by reducing benefits to the disabled. I am beginning to think that they are right. I am not at all happy that, when my anxious constituents undergo a so-called medical—from doctors whom I shall not name—which at best is perfunctory, they then stand to lose all their benefits at the subsequent tribunal. I hope that the Minister will try to do something to help, as my constituents are not trying to con money out of the system.
My final point is really urgent, and I hope that the Minister will try to respond to it. Yesterday, a distressed constituent, Mrs. Kim Ansell, telephoned my office. Her husband, Barry Swain, a self-employed lorry driver, owns his own truck and at present is in prison in France, awaiting a hearing on 28 May. Barry and Mrs. Ansell took the truck to Lille two weeks ago, acting on behalf of a shipping company for which they usually drive. The company had asked them to pick up the trailer and load of another trucker who had been arrested. The trailer was at the Lille police station.
When they arrived, they were led into the back of the police station. Unbelievably, Mrs. Ansell was stripped and intimately searched by a young female student in front of two male officers. Her husband Barry was not stripped or searched. Both were questioned at intervals of three hours. They were told that the police were looking for stolen or forged credit cards. I know that there are always two sides to a story, but I have not had time to get the other side. I hope that the Minister will do that.
As a result of the investigations, Mr. Swain is being held in prison. Mrs. Ansell was released, and is now back in England. Her husband Barry has not been arrested but


is being held. She has not seen him since, and she has not been allowed to speak to him by telephone. She has been told that if she wants to go to France to visit her husband she must send her passport, birth and marriage certificates to France, which will be reviewed by the judge dealing with the case, Judge Madame Stella, who will decide whether she can see him. This is the Common Market for goodness sake.
While Mr. Swain and Mrs. Ansell were being questioned, they were told that a number of drivers are being held on remand in France in connection with credit card fraud, and that one of them had named Mr. Swain as being involved. They were shown photographs, but neither of them had seen any of the men before. Barry was not found to have credit cards on his person; nor was he on any security film with credit cards. They were told that the main culprit had been arrested in England on six charges, but was out on bail and had gone to France and was arrested. I do not think that I should name that person.
Mrs. Ansell was upset about the nature of the questioning. The subject of the death of her son was raised. He died in Scotland some years ago, and she wonders how the police knew about that. The main point that I should like the Minister kindly to help with is the length of time it took the British consul to visit Mr. Swain and the lack of legal representation. Mrs. Ansell contacted the consul on 17 May and was told that she would have to get an appointment for the visit. The consul still has not seen Mr. Swain, but apparently may visit him on 27 May.
This is a serious matter, and I should be very grateful if, before the House adjourns, the Minister could get some help for my constituent.

Mr. Harry Barnes: These Adjournment debates are popularly referred to as consisting of short speeches, so I shall keep my contribution brief. I have three items to raise.
First, constituents are facing problems obtaining passports. We are coming to the recess, and some hon. Members may be lucky enough to be popping overseas for a short while. Many of our constituents are having considerable problems obtaining passports so that they can go on holiday. My constituents use the Liverpool passport office, and it is claimed that passports are sometimes sent out but have not been received, so duplicate copies must be sent and that involves much organisation. Some constituents have waited 10 weeks or more: their cheques have been cashed, but they have not received their passports. There is a last-minute panic, and finally the matter is brought to the attention of their Member of Parliament and arrangements must be made so that those constituents can obtain passports.
People can obtain a passport quickly by going to a post office and paying £3.20 under what is termed a partnership scheme. Whether there should be such a scheme when the general waiting list for passports is not moving is debatable, but such a system should be operated properly.
I had a case of constituents who made use of the post office facility on 28 April. As it is supposed to take 10 days to receive a passport, they should have received theirs on 8 May. They had not received them by 19 May and were due to leave for their holiday on 20 May. When the chief executive's office of the UK Passport Agency

was contacted, arrangements were made to post the passports that day so that my constituents would receive them in time to go on holiday. A check was made of whether they had received them. They had not, so a courier had to be sent from Liverpool to north-east Derbyshire. The courier left late, and arrangements were made by telephone that one of the relatives of the people concerned would go to junction 29 of the motorway to meet the courier. Meanwhile, a taxi was waiting to take my constituents to the airport. They managed it, but that shows the serious state of affairs.
I dealt with another case yesterday. I contacted the chief executive's office, and was told that it was also having difficulty contacting the Liverpool passport office and was obliged to send material by fax. We are checking whether the people concerned receive their passports in time. This is a serious matter, and needs to be dealt with, given that the recess is approaching. I hope that the appropriate Department will take my comments on board, and that improvements will be made so that constituents are not placed in that position.
The second problem that I want to mention concerns an issue that I have already raised in another Adjournment debate. It is about the payment of jobseeker's allowance when a firm goes into receivership. This matter was brought to my attention by the collapse on 22 April of Bryan Donkin Foundry Limited at Renishaw in my constituency. So far, 160 out of a work force of 180 have been sacked. They were entitled to moneys from their ex-employer when the receivers moved in, but must wait for the redundancy arrangements to be worked out. According to a parliamentary answer that process takes nine weeks on average.
In the meantime, those sacked workers are not entitled to jobseeker's allowance and must be dealt with through income support, which is means-tested. They are from my constituency or neighbouring areas. Out of the 160, only 10 per cent. or so receive income support, because other income coming into the family is taken into account. In one case, the claimant does not receive any payment because of his wife's disability benefit.
The Government are well aware of this problem. I wrote to the Department for Education and Employment immediately, and I raised the matter in an Adjournment debate. I received a letter from the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, which says:
As things stand … any notice payment due must be taken into account in calculating JSA during the notice period, even though it has not yet been actually paid. The Department of Social Security, rather than this Department, have the lead responsibility for this area of JSA policy. They are considering the matter in conjunction with DTI, but I understand that the issues involved are proving complex.
I am not sure what the great complexities are, but this matter requires three Departments to co-ordinate their activities.

Mr. Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the injustice is even greater, because the longer the individual's service with the firm and the greater the redundancy payment, the longer he will be denied support from the state system?

Mr. Barnes: As the average period to sort out the redundancy payment is nine weeks, and the payment


depends on the number of years of service, the people who have waited nine weeks or more are the most seriously affected by this problem.
The Minister's letter goes on to say:
There are also practical difficulties—for example, surrounding the early identification of whether or not an employer is insolvent.
A distinction is made between a firm that goes into receivership, which is the case with Bryan Donkin, and one that becomes insolvent. The letter also says:
DSS are unable to say when the work will be completed, but I am assured that efforts are being made to conclude the matter as quickly as possible.
If the relevant period is nine weeks, my constituents are halfway through it. I hope that the matter will be resolved in time, but it seems obvious to me that it will not be, and I feel that something must be done on my constituents' behalf.
Finally, I want to say something about Yugoslavia and the NATO bombing. I have always supported the bombing of military targets, and I accept that some civilians are bound to be caught up in that and that there will be unfortunate accidents. However, I feel that the number of civilians who are being killed and injured, and whose lives are being disrupted in what is allegedly not an all-out war, is excessive, as is the number of errors. Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, has argued in favour of proportionality, and I think that what she says should be seriously considered.
It should be possible to make a reasonable distinction between military and civilian targets. Military targets are military hardware and troops; civilian targets—which, obviously, should be avoided—include schools, hospitals, health care centres, housing estates, monasteries and religious shrines. A number of those have been hit, it is claimed by accident. But in which class should we place bridges, railway stations, civilian airports, public institutions, factories, agricultural complexes and telecommunications facilities? Some of those might be said to have military links, but most are basically civilian, and often civilians will be hurt the most when they are attacked. In a number of cases, civilians are being hit while military targets are merely suffering collateral damage.
The NATO high command strikes me as both inept—in terms of the number of accidents that have occurred, and to which it has admitted—and cavalier in its attempt to distinguish between civilian military targets. I hope that our Government will take account of the pressure on NATO to stick to what a number of us signed up to at the outset: an attack on military targets, rather than on the Yugoslavian population.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I fear that I cannot emulate the grand tour of Southend, West to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) treated us earlier, as he customarily does. I shall limit myself to a single subject.
I am pleased to bring the House what I consider to be very good news of an excellent project in my constituency called First Check Point, which is proving to be

dramatically successful in combating the menace of cowboy builders. That is entirely due to the tremendous work of one Mrs. Hazel Jones, who set up the project and initially ran it almost single-handed.
I am sure that all hon. Members will have dealt with constituency cases involving cowboy builders. Home owners are told that a job urgently needs to be done before further costly damage is caused; builders turn up, invited or uninvited; the resulting charges may bear no relation to the cost of the job, or the time that it takes. Elderly people in particular are faced with myriad quotations for larger jobs especially, having no idea what the cost should be or how well qualified the workman who takes on the labour will prove to be.
Some unscrupulous builders take deposits and then abscond. Smaller jobs that would not be profitable for reputable traders are not taken on, and the home owner is left to the mercy of smaller, less scrupulous traders. When doing one job, a builder may create faults that require a second, more expensive job. Builders may start the work although their quotation has not been accepted, or they may make the job out to be much bigger than it is by not doing the minimum work required to deal with the problem. They may take on work that is beyond their capabilities, or they may do the work in a hurry, which results in a poor standard of workmanship. Some use the wrong materials in order to save costs; others may have too many projects on the go at the same time and consequently move from one job to another, spending only a short time on each and disrupting the householder for far longer than is necessary. Such cases lead to what Mrs. Jones describes as "builderphobia".
Let me give some examples from my constituency. A female householder who heard water running in her loft telephoned a plumber—a member of the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers—whose name she had found in Yellow Pages. The plumber visited the attic, and reported that the whole system needed replacing—and that if the householder did not have the work done, she would be replacing the ceilings. The price quoted was some £800. A CORGI-registered plumber from First Check Point then visited, and found that all that was required was replacement of the ballcock at a cost of £35, which meant a saving of £765.
An elderly female householder needed the rotten woodwork around her garage door replacing. She asked for two quotations: one was for £2,340, and the other for £1,430. Both included the cost of replacing the whole garage roof. First Check Point sent a surveyor, who found that all that needed to be replaced was the woodwork surrounding the garage door and the lead flashing above it. The roof was not damaged in any way, and no part of it was leaking. The quotations were for £595 and £650 respectively. I am sure that hon. Members could give many other examples.
I know that the Government are aware of the problem. Last year the Department of Trade and Industry produced a welcome consultation paper entitled "Combating Cowboy Builders", and various working parties are taking action. First Check Point, however, has already achieved dramatic results.
A year ago, a little lady in her 60s came to my surgery. She had a curious mid-Atlantic accent, and wore a large fur coat. Her name was Hazel Jones. She brought with her many ideas from the United States, where she had spent


a lot of time in industry and the voluntary sector, working on federal housing projects with, in particular, elderly people. She said that she needed mental stimulation, and something to keep her busy.
Subsequently, last October, Hazel Jones, the mayor of Worthing and I—along with others—launched First Check Point. It was initially funded by Hazel herself and a local builder, who was keen to help because cowboy builders give the reputable trade a bad name. The project was tied in with local voluntary organisations and the police. A team of retired volunteers manned the telephones in the office to which part of Mrs. Jones's house had been converted, and a team of semi-retired professionals came on board to give quotations and assess what work needed to be done.
First Check Point works like this. Someone needing a job, big or small, to be done telephones the organisation. An approved volunteer—all those involved have at least 40 years' building experience—visits the property, lists the items of work that need to be done and specifies the type of trader who will be required. There is then a choice of two schemes. For small jobs, there is the approved handyman scheme, involving a list of skilled tradesmen, usually semi-retired, who want the odd one or two days' work a week. They are closely vetted. They must prove that they live locally, they must have at least three references in relation to jobs done in the past, and they must have no police record. The work is awarded on the basis that they have indemnity insurance of at least £1 million. Those smaller jobs may be electrical or they may involve plumbing, roofing or carpentry.
Larger jobs are dealt with through the approved trader scheme, which involves a list of approved local traders with proven track records and references from people who are prepared to guarantee their work. Two or three appropriate tradesmen will be asked to give quotations, all of which must be itemised and signed by both builder and householder.
Both lists are reviewed regularly, and householders who have had a job done are required to answer a questionnaire about the quality of the workmanship. First Check Point will monitor the work to ensure that it is done properly; if it is not, First Check Point will bring back the builder to ensure that it is done to the required standard.
The scheme was originally funded voluntarily, with help from Worthing council grants and charities such as New Horizons—which was so impressed by the quality of the scheme that it doubled its initial donation. Following the mushrooming of the scheme, First Check Point now levies a 5 per cent. commission on approved tradesmen, and a commission of £5 per day of work on approved handymen. There are no direct costs to the customer.
I mention the scheme because it has been spectacularly successful. Earlier in the month, we reached the mark of 1,000 jobs done since 1 January: in the space of just four months, more than 1,000 people have been helped with jobs. There has been a torrent of thank you letters, and letters of congratulation saying, "I do not know how anyone could go to Yellow Pages or any other local trading body without coming to you first because the scheme is so successful."
The scheme now covers the area from Brighton to Littlehampton and is under great pressure to expand. Age Concern is sending some of its national officers to

consider the scheme seriously, with a view to helping to establish pilot schemes in other parts of the country. The National Neighbourhood Watch Association is coming on board because First Check Point is a useful scheme to combat crime as well. It could deter unscrupulous traders who knock on the doors of little old ladies to offer their services, but who may have ulterior motives. The local neighbourhood watch has been helping to distribute window stickers that are based on neighbourhood watch window stickers, but which have First Check Point on them, thereby deterring cowboy builders from trying to take advantage of people who need work to be done.
I said earlier that the Government's work on cowboy builders is welcome, but the consultation paper addresses only the quality of the builders' workmanship. It deals only with national projects, but the success of First Check Point has been the local supervision and the local factor: the capacity of local people to monitor the standard of the work and to award a sort of kite mark. In addition, the national lists proposed in the consultation on cowboy builders would not include the small firm—the two or three-person family firms that are the lifeblood of First Check Point.
First Check Point works very well. It works largely because of the absolute dedication of Mrs. Hazel Jones and the people who work with her, such as Norman Tilley, who has been on board from the start. They would be the first to admit that it is not perfect, but it is simple, it addresses the problems that have been experienced and gives the public, particularly the elderly, someone to turn to for objective advice.
The scheme is self-funding; it does not rely on any public money. Its purpose is also preventive because it aims to stop problems happening in the first place, rather than to solve them once they have occurred.
I hope that, by my mentioning the project today, other hon. Members may gain something from the experiences of what is a simple, but effective scheme for their own constituencies. I should be happy to provide information. However, I fear that, if they are looking to set up a similar scheme in their constituency, many will be hard pressed to find their own version of Mrs. Hazel Jones.

Ms Julia Drown: I take this opportunity to add my support to hon. Members who have voiced their support for the building society sector. The continuing mutual status of building societies is an essential part of retaining competition in the financial services sector. It is vital for savers and investors that we continue to have competition in that sector.
The other issue that I should like to raise has not been raised yet, but dominates my postbag: the technology of genetic modification and its impact on the safety of food and the environment. The Government's announcement just last week of measures to make the vetting and monitoring processes for genetically modified foods even more rigorous are welcome, but more needs to be done to reassure the public continually and to make them feel confident about the Government's approach.
My constituents may raise the issue more than others because we have a GM crop trial site in a neighbouring constituency, which understandably raises the profile of the issue. Many of my constituents have written to me


about their concerns on both the local and national situations. They want to be assured that their health and the environment are protected.
My constituents want to be sure that trials are taking place scientifically, with a proper base line of information established. They want monitoring of all the environmental implications—for example, how bees carrying the crop for miles will affect other crops—and of what happens to scatterings of the crop as it is carried on trucks in and out of the area.
My constituents are naturally uncertain about the implications of such a site because the information that they receive via the press is not consistent. While the Government seek to allay concerns and, rightly, to play down some of the more scaremongering claims, they and the companies involved are not yet taking on all the justified concerns from our constituents, many of which are backed by scientific experts who contest the Government's and companies' statements of reassurance.
I accept that many of the discussions in the sector are technical, but that should not be an excuse for blinding the public with science. It is part of scientists' job to make their results understandable to lay people, particularly when so many may be affected by them, as in the case of GM crops. We do not need to be drowned in detail to get to the important issues around GM crops. However, the complexity may mean that we need more time to debate the matter when we return after the break.
I recognise that a major problem in the sector is that no one can make categorical claims for or against the safety of GM crops and foods because, at this stage, no one really knows. We also need to recognise that, even when more information is available, we will still be unable to expect categorical claims either proving or disproving the safety of GM foods. We will instead be faced with probabilities and risk assessments.
For example, we will be told that X per cent. of a GM crop will be blown Y metres beyond the field boundary in normal winds and that more severe winds will carry crops further. We will be told to expect that, in so many years of a century, there will be those more severe winds; so I accept that categorical claims, one way or another, will be difficult.
I can see that Ministers want to be able to say that GM crops are totally safe, but they cannot and they recognise that. They have referred to "justified concerns" about GM crops and to the "risk of cross-pollination". They have even acknowledged
a small, but finite, chance that unprocessed maize as an animal feed stuff could lead to a transfer of antibiotic resistance.
They have recognised also that
a number of research studies have indicated potential interference with ecological systems from GM crops, with varying degrees of permanence".
Those responses accept the lack of certainty and the current gaps in knowledge, yet that lack of certainty does not always come across to the public.
My constituents tend to think that the Government have not accepted that lack of certainty. They believe that the Government have no concerns whatever about the safety and impact of GM organisms. The inconsistency in messages being received will have to be resolved if the public are to gain confidence in the Government's stance on what is an important issue.
I need to stress that it is not only an issue of responsibility for the Government. The companies involved also need to take consumers' views more seriously. In the case of the trial site in my neighbouring constituency, the press notices did not go out in the local paper until after the seeds had been planted. Companies will need to do much better than that if they are to gain the confidence of consumers.
I suggest a number of ways in which the Government should be reviewing and refining their approach to GM crops and foods. First, they need to convince the public, as they have done with the risks of BSE—bovine spongiform encephalopathy—that, if there is even the smallest doubt about the safety of GM technology and its possible long-term consequences, steps will be taken to protect the public and our environment, whatever the cost in terms of a reduced contribution by biotechnology companies to the United Kingdom economy.
Secondly, there is the question of why and whether we need GM foods at all. That simple question does not seem to feature enough in debates on the GM issue. Where is the evidence that it is impractical to use traditional crops or organic fanning methods to meet food needs in future?
Some proponents of GM technology say that GM crops will help the environment by reducing the use of pesticides. However, some GM crops would encourage the use of pesticides. Encouraging organic agriculture, rather than GM agriculture, would much more directly and reliably address the problem of the over-use of pesticides.
Although the Government have greatly increased support for organic farming, yet more could be done. Last year, they spent £1.7 million on research into organic farming, but £52 million on agricultural biotechnology research. An adjustment in that ratio could have a huge impact on organic farming.
I have in my constituency one of the most successful organic farms in England. Its success shows that there is a clear and increasing market for organic food. Organic food is sometimes described as a niche market; but on current attitudes, it seems more likely than GM food to become a mainstream market.
Organic farms are also more labour intensive, employing more people, and thereby meeting another Government objective. Therefore, surely development of organic food should be a higher priority than development of GM food.
I realise that some GM food farmers and companies assert that, in time, GM foods will be accepted, particularly once they bring food prices down. Currently, however, consumers seem equally concerned about the risks of GM foods. In short, the public are not yet convinced of the need for GM foods.
Thirdly, we should consider the wider benefits that GM technology may bring to health care. Undoubtedly, the technology has huge potential in the health sphere. We may have to understand more about GM technology in plants before we are able to understand how it will affect animals and humans. However, that is not a justification for planting GM crops; it is a justification for continuing genetic research in laboratories.
Fourthly, the Government could allay public concerns and ensure properly conducted development—if there is to be development—of GM crops by addressing the issue


of GM trial site management. Currently, neither the Government nor the companies involved clearly state the objectives of each trial, or what results will lead to what actions.
I should like to be able to assure my constituents that if, for example, it is demonstrated at a trial site that the local bird population has decreased by a certain proportion, we shall not allow commercial planting of that GM crop. Such a criterion would give the public the type of assurance that they need. They could watch the trials being openly assessed against predefined criteria.
Fifthly, in addressing many of the issues of GM crops, we have to work with our partners in Europe, and lead our European partners in ensuring that we all take a cautious approach to the matter. European Community directive 90/220/EEC is clearly a matter of concern, as it provides that once a GM crop receives marketing consent under the directive, the consent will apply across all member states, and there will be no automatic requirement to notify the authorities either of where the crop is grown or of the size of the area covered.
I hope that our Government will be urging reform of the directive, so that—in the interests of freedom of information, transparency and accountability—the relevant authorities will have to be notified in advance of plans to grow GM crops commercially in a given area.
The directive makes the European Economic Community sound as if it is very much in favour of GM foods—but that line is not taken by all its members. The Greek Government have informally called for a Europewide moratorium on planting GM crops, but that call has not received support. However, rumour has it that, at the European Environment Council on 24 June, the Greek Government will again state their wish for a Europewide moratorium—thereby providing another reason why more British parliamentary time should be set aside to discuss the issues.
I am sure that many of our parliamentarians would like to try to influence the British position on the proposal. Many of my constituents favour the Government supporting such a moratorium until more information on GM crops is available.
Sixthly, the Government have to tackle very directly the fears about antibiotic marker genes. Sir Robert May, chief scientific adviser to the Government, has stated:
Often marker genes in GM plants are antibiotic resistant, so that there is a risk that humans could acquire these antibiotic genes from their food, thus accelerating the already existing, and very troublesome, world problem of increasing resistance to today's antibiotics".
The European Parliament has been very helpful on the issue, approving an amendment to the EEC directive on GM organisms, which states that GMOs
must not contain any antibiotic-resistant genes or traces of toxic or pathogenic substances".
However, the amended directive will not take effect unless it is adopted by member Governments.
Austria and Luxembourg have both imposed bans on an antibiotic-resistant gene crop. Our Government should ban all GM organisms that have been modified to have antibiotic-resistant genes or traces of toxic or pathogenic substances.
We have made significant progress on labelling—particularly by contrast with the previous Government's complete inertia on the matter. However, there are

still concerns. Products containing GM derivatives, and products that were processed with GM ingredients but do not ultimately contain those ingredients, are not necessarily labelled as GM products. However, consumers who object to GM technology should be able to choose not to buy or support the manufacture of those products.
The absence of labelling on GM animal feed is another concern, which is reminiscent of farmers' worries over BSE. If we are truly to uphold and safeguard consumer choice, labelling must be comprehensive.
The Government could encourage developing countries that wish to be entirely free of GM crops to become so, thereby ensuring greater consumer choice. Such a decision could be a real bonus for those countries, and ensure that they not only have a market for their products, but benefit British consumers.
Segregation is the final issue. Although segregation may incur extra costs, those costs are a consequence of the new technology. The cost of segregation should, therefore, be placed on the costs of GM foods themselves. If segregation makes GM foods too expensive, we shall again have to ask why the products are being produced.
I should like the Government to investigate how we might ensure that companies promoting GM technology take full responsibility for any future health or environmental damage caused by GM foods. Although I realise that that may raise even more issues, it also demonstrates the need for more parliamentary time to be allocated to debate this important subject.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The situation in the Balkans is so dire, and the suffering of the Kosovars so abject, that I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me for raising issues that have I raised before, in debates on 19 April and 18 May.
In the first debate, I said:
This is not a phoney war. I use the word 'war' advisedly although the Foreign Secretary does not like it. It is certainly a war for the people of Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia and for the aircrew of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, who have now joined the conflict."—[Official Report, 19 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 635.]
I said then, and say again, that a declared state of war is important to ensure that our aircrew have the protection of the Geneva convention if they are taken prisoner. I made it clear then, and make it clear again today, that I support the air campaign as a necessary prerequisite for the liberation of Kosovo from the occupying Serb forces. But the Government really must ensure that their war aims are clearly defined and spelled out properly, both to the House and to the British public.
During the Falklands war, I was the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Defence, and I recall how assiduous John Nott was in making statements to the House at every stage of the conflict, even late at night, and even when the news was at its worst. Perhaps it was even more necessary that the news should be broken early if it was bad, when a ship went down or some other disaster befell our forces, so that their morale, and that of the British public, should be sustained.
I recall, too, the totally trustworthy Mr. McDonald of the Ministry of Defence, who was almost daily on our television screens, informing the British public of the objectives of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and of


the sorties flown, the numbers of Argentine and British aircraft shot down, the outcome of naval engagements at sea, and the progress of the land campaign as it yomped its arduous way towards Port Stanley. There were no concessions to sentimentality, and no regrets about what was being done, but only a determination to win which was continually communicated to the British public. We shall need their full support in the very difficult days ahead.
By contrast, the NATO spokesman, Mr. Shea, seems always to be in apologetic mode, coming on television screens to apologise for the sad bombing errors committed, but never emphasising sufficiently the undoubted successes of our British armed forces and NATO forces—successes which outnumber the tragic errors.
I should add that it would be helpful if the Ministry of Defence had senior Royal Air Force officers, preferably with recent operational experience, as spokesmen while the air war predominates, to explain the capabilities and limitations of modern airborne weapons systems, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the air offensive as the essential prerequisite to the physical removal of Serb forces from Kosovo. Once troops are inserted into the province of Kosovo, the spokesmen should be from the Army, but, for the time being, the British public need a better explanation of the air war.
Today, NATO is due to increase its military deployment in Macedonia and Albania by one third, to 48,000. How I wish that we had more Gurkhas, more paratroops, more reserves and more helicopters, but we are going to have to make do with what we have. We have to win. Military men understand that only infantry can hold ground. Kosovo is difficult territory for armour and a multitude of helicopters will be required. The military appreciate the challenges ahead of air supply and fighting off the partisan attacks for which the Yugoslav army has trained assiduously for two generations. So effective was that training that the USSR was dissuaded from invading Yugoslavia while Tito was in power. To this day, we have kept Russia out of the Balkans.
NATO needs all the friends it can get to take the war to the enemy. That must mean the establishment of a NATO military mission to the Kosovo Liberation Army. In the April debate, I also advocated the arming and training of the KLA.
Beyond the victory that NATO must achieve if Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia are to be safe from Serbian aggression, NATO must win the peace. A messy, inglorious compromise would be a recipe for further conflict—hence the need for clear political aims. They should not be dictated by Russia, which we have always successfully kept out of the Balkans, or by a desire to appease the pusillanimous tendencies of the weakest members of the NATO alliance. They should be decided by the Kosovar people, freely expressing their sovereign political will entirely democratically through the exercise of a universal adult franchise via the ballot box.
Regrettably, Her Majesty's Government have set their face against self-determination for Kosovo. I recognise that the human rights of the Serb minority will have to be safeguarded in Kosovo, but the Yugoslav federation as a

legitimate polity is dead and should not be resurrected by NATO. Its disintegration is by no means complete, but the establishment of a free, democratic, independent Kosovo is the first step towards a better system of security for the Balkans. Beyond that, perhaps the secession and full independence of Montenegro might ensue.
I urge the Government to explain at every stage the clear objectives for which this bloody and difficult war is being fought. It is the vilest conflict that we have known in our continent since the second world war. It will get harder rather than easier. I hope that we have the courage to see it through. The Kosovars deserve nothing less. They have suffered enough already.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had 14 speeches since 9.30 am and the debate has lived up to the tradition of recess Adjournment debates. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I begin by referring to someone who is not here. I have missed seeing the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his accustomed place. I have attended most of these Adjournment debates over the past 29 years and have replied to every one over the past two years. On almost every occasion, the hon. Gentleman has been present and has frequently taken part in his inimitable way. I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will convey the greetings of the House to his hon. Friend, whom we hope to see back in full health and vigour after the recess.
The debate began with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is a great authority on football. He talked about a subject on which I have no personal expertise—the issuing of permits for foreign footballers to play in this country. He seemed to make a powerful, logical plea and I hope that Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment will respond positively. However, I could not help feeling a little nostalgic sadness as the hon. Gentleman spoke about the vast sums of money. I am one of those who feel that sport has been rather ruined by money. I regret the passing of the days when local teams were local teams. As a boy in the early 1950s, I used to go and watch Grimsby Town. All the players came from the area and it was a true local team, as were most others. I greatly regret that money has intruded so much that in some famous teams almost none of the players is eligible to play for this country.
We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) about the way in which certain too trusting, perhaps even gullible, pensioners had been misled by those selling home income plans. She spoke movingly of the distress that is caused, even going to the extent of naming an individual, making proper use of parliamentary privilege. I hope that her plea will be heeded in all the appropriate quarters. I hope, in particular, that those who have charge of our building societies will have regard to what she said.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) began with a brief but eloquent and moving tribute to the late Derek Fatchett. I associate myself with what he said—as I am sure does every hon. Member present—about a colleague who will be much missed for many years. I hope that when he goes home to Leeds this weekend he will convey those views to the family of Derek Fatchett.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the terrible problems caused to young women who are subjected to the appalling physical and mental brutality of pimps. He made


a plea for summary justice so that people can be tried for offences that it is generally known they have committed. That is too complex a subject to deal with in proper detail in a mere moment in responding to this debate, but I hope that the Law Officers heed what he said and that we may see some action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke of a building society as Macclesfield's own. I thought that he was Macclesfield's own—he certainly has been for the past 28 years in this House. Nobody has spoken up more vigorously for their constituents over those years. This morning, he made a plea for the improvement of the A523 and the A6, referring to the problems that would be caused by the opening of a second runway at Manchester airport and the traffic that the Commonwealth games would bring. For good measure, he might also have talked about the world cup coming here in 2006. I hope that Transport Ministers will respond.
My hon. Friend also made a plea for the East Cheshire NHS trust to be maintained, and talked about wanting to protect the Cheshire building society—Macclesfield's own—from the predatory actions of get-rich-quick merchants. I have great sympathy with that point.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who has become a regular at these debates, raised a constituency matter. I cannot begin to have any expertise on the Essex structure plan, but I know from personal experience the threats of urban encroachment in lovely rural areas. I can assure him that there are lovely rural areas in South Staffordshire as I well know there are in Essex. I sincerely hope that his campaign for the green belt will be heeded. I could not help but think of the immortal remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister a few months ago when he said, "The green belt is a Labour achievement and we shall build upon it." I hope that he will, but in the right sense.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) expressed his support for building societies and echoed almost to the word what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said. He spoke with understandable consternation about the multi-modal study for the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester. What awful gobbledegook we are subjected to these days! May his bringing that appalling mouthful to the attention of the House teach those a lesson who really ought to know about plain English.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who has the longest-sounding constituency, made the longest speech of the morning, although he did warn us he would. I must be kind to him because when he was briefly here in another incarnation, he was my pair at a time when I desperately needed one, so the gratitude that he then inspired in me will not easily evaporate. He seemed to be speaking from rather over-copious notes when he gave us a sort of essay on the demographic profile of the north-east—perhaps the north-east quadrant of Middlesbrough.
We all have problems with the revenue support grant and the standard spending assessment and it was right that the hon. Gentleman should bring these matters to the House. Just as I was longing for an eclipse, lo and behold my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) talked about one. At that point, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East seemed to shuffle away quite a lot of the speech that he had prepared.
In an entirely non-partisan, non-party political way, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked about the eclipse in Cornwall. He explained that bookings were down and that Cornwall could easily cope with ordinary tourism. No wonderful part of England could have had a better and less partisan advocate than my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who uncharacteristically is not in his place, talked about the Kosovo crisis. He expressed misgivings about sending in ground troops and expressed a need for the House to debate a substantive motion. As the Leader of the House has made plain on a number of occasions, there is no recent precedent for a debate on the conflict on a substantive motion because of the dangers that that can pose to those who are upholding our country's honour and integrity. I shall say no more, as the hon. Gentleman is not here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) raised no fewer than seven issues. I am most grateful to him for his plug for the banquet that I am organising in Westminster Hall on 1 July. I believe that there are about 10 tickets left and applications will be received later. I hope that it will be yet another wonderful event in the history of that great hall, which encapsulates the history of our nation.
My hon. Friend then talked about a slightly less illustrious building—the Palace theatre. His speech was a bit like "The Archers". We look forward to a new episode on the Palace theatre every time we have one of these Adjournment debates. If it is dark in August, I suggest that, in preparation for the winter pantomime, my hon. Friend hold nightly public meetings there and entertain his constituents in the way that he entertains us here. That would be a lovely curtain raiser for the pantomime about which he told us—in which I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister will be playing Widow Twankey.
My hon. Friend also talked about the need for proper consumer protection, about the indignity to which disabled people are sometimes put by medical examinations, and about his constituent, who is in prison in France. That was a deeply disturbing tale.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who regularly contributes to these debates, talked about the problems at the passport office in Liverpool. We all know about them. He also spoke of the difficulties faced by those who are made redundant by firms that then go into liquidation. He then referred to Kosovo and the need for very careful targeting, and expressed some misgivings about recent events.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) gave a splendid testimonial to Mrs. Hazel Jones, who set up the First Check Point organisation to deal with cowboy builders. It is obviously a marvellous initiative which I hope will be emulated in all parts of the country.
The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) spoke with great knowledge about genetically modified food and asked the central question: why do we need it? I hope that, in the weeks ahead, Ministers will provide detailed answers to that question above all and to the other questions that she legitimately raised.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made some extremely realistic comments about the conflict in the Balkans. He gave the Government strong support. This


gives me a chance to return to the speech by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who has now resumed his seat. He and I have differed on the issue for many years, although I respect his integrity. My own views are closer to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who, at the end of his speech, said that NATO must win and that we need a realistic assessment, with facts being put daily before the people in a convincing way that instils confidence in our troops. That must be taken very much to heart.
We have had an interesting, wide-ranging debate. I am delighted to have had the chance briefly to refer to every speech and I hope that I have kept my part of the bargain by sitting down now and allowing the Minister to respond.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): It has indeed been a varied, interesting, stimulating and sometimes vigorous debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken the opportunity to argue for their constituencies, for local interest groups and at times for individuals. In addition, some big themes have been raised. A particular theme that permeated several speeches was the conflicting interests involved in encouraging development, transport and industry and sustaining and enhancing the environment.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) talked about the development of wind farms. I am very keen on the idea and I assure him that the Government will reach their 10 per cent. target on renewables by 2010. However, wind farms have a downside, particularly in an attractive landscape. Those who advocate wind farms need to remember that a wind farm that could produce as much electricity as a conventional coal power station, depending on wind speed and other factors, would have to be the size of Greater Manchester.
Some hard issues were raised by the hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who talked about the problems of inner cities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) spoke of the balance between developing and protecting the environment in the context of genetically modified food. That was a key theme in the debate.
The second key theme this morning, which is extremely important, is the conflict in Kosovo. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will know that there will be yet another statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It is important that, as the House adjourns for the recess, hon. Members should be kept up to date with developments. He asked what would happen during the vacation. If significant events take place, he can be sure that there will be calls for Parliament to be recalled, and I can assure him that they will be considered seriously. It has been important to keep the House up to date with developments, and there has been a statement or a debate roughly every fortnight.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) pointed out that there was a need not just to keep the House involved, but to talk to the wider public about our aims and whether they are being achieved; and about the real difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow spoke of the dangers of ground troops, and he will know that that matter is being looked at closely. He will know also that the issue of precedents for debates in the House has been considered on a number of occasions and, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, precedence is with us, not my hon. Friend, on this matter.
I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), and I was pleased that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) talked strongly in favour of the benefits of mutuals. We must let mutual building societies speak for themselves and demonstrate—as I think they can—in a market economy that their interest rates are lower than those organisations have converted to banks.
We must get the message across to members of the mutuals, because they must have the right to decide on the future. It may well be that the rules are not right at the moment, and I have raised that issue in the past. However, I know that Treasury Ministers are aware of the issue, and I am sure that they will be prepared to meet the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and others to talk about mutuals.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred also to failed income support plans, and she was right to say that there are problems in this area. Financial Services Authority regulators have paid out £69 million in compensation to 4,500 individual claimants, but there is still more to be done. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be prepared to meet the kind of delegation that was asked for this morning.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield spoke out strongly about transport issues to the south of Manchester and in the Cheshire area. I ought to admit that I am perhaps one of the culprits who has despoiled and helped to damage his village. I come from north Nottinghamshire, and I regularly use Manchester airport. The route from north Nottinghamshire to Cheshire is an extremely attractive one, which I have admired. I am sure that people do not admire my own car going there.
I am pleased to note that a multi-modal study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester is now taking place. It is important that such studies report early, as the length of time that planning decisions take is an issue. People can often live with bad news, but they cannot live with uncertainty. It is important to pursue the campaign to try to integrate transport and to put money into rural bus services.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove talked about petrol prices going up, and referred to a lack of communication in the Government. Petrol prices went up as a result of Treasury action, but, as a result of interdepartmental discussions, the rural bus grant—which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged had merits, and some demerits—was introduced at the same time.
I heard what the hon. Member for Macclesfield said about the NHS trust in his area, and it is important that people deliver services in a way that best benefits consumers in the area. My message to those reorganising the health service would be to wait a while and see what happens to primary care groups before moving to trust status.
I understand all too well the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) about housing development. I applaud his action in making sure that the voice of local residents and local councils is heard. We must ensure that brown-field sites are developed before green-field sites. We must ensure that the 60 per cent. target is met, and that sequential development takes place, so that derelict sites are developed before the more profit-rich, green-field sites that developers in his area are clearly looking for. We ought to keep an eye out for the urban task force report, which is due shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) talked about the needs in his area and the desires of his local council. I was in local government, and I used to complain vigorously about the standard spending assessment formula and the way in which it disadvantaged my county. However, every council takes that view. The best way forward is to look at making the best use of resources and making do with what one has, rather than devoting effort to what one does not have.
I am confident that the council in Redcar and Cleveland is modernising, and I understand my hon. Friend's point about the need to review local government finance. This issue is on the desk of the Deputy Prime Minister, and a review is taking place. Again, these are hard issues, but Redcar and Cleveland received the best settlement—a 5.2 per cent. increase in SSA—for many years.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) talked about Cornwall. 1 was in St. Ives a few days ago, and I appreciate the importance of the tourism industry to Cornwall. It is a high-quality industry which provides value for money, and I am going back on 11 August to see the eclipse. While I was there, people talked to me about raising the quality of the tourism industry, and they are doing that. They see the minimum wage not as a

threat, but as an opportunity. The county council, the police and the staff at Truro general hospital are working hard to ensure that everything will be right on 11 August.
I will write, as I always do, to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who raised a number of issues. On disability, it is important that we make progress in providing work for people with a disability who can work, while providing security for those who cannot. I understand the difficulties that have arisen at medical boards, and I know that complaints are made. The wait until the tribunal deserves further attention only.
The problems at the UK Passport Agency—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—also deserve attention. The situation is not good, although a new system has been put in place. There are difficulties, but 99 per cent. of applications are being dealt with within the time frame.
On the jobseeker's allowance, I assure my hon. Friend that Ministers from various Departments are tackling the problems.
I wish I had a Hazel Jones in my constituency. There has been talk of transfer fees in the Chamber today, and we could have a discussion on transferring Hazel Jones to Nottinghamshire so that she could set up a First Check Point group in my constituency.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East had a chance to mention Derek Fatchett.
Also, there is a great deal to be done to tackle crime, prostitution and drugs in Leeds, and we must work hard to ensure that that happens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) opened the match by talking about problems about employment permits. I am told that decisions will be made by 30 June—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Feltham Young Offenders Institution

Dr. Vincent Cable: I have been fortunate in winning ballots for Adjournment debates, but this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to introduce a debate on what is, frankly, a substantial public scandal. Feltham young offenders institution is in crisis and has occasioned one of the most critical reports on a public institution to have been written in recent years.
My interest in the matter goes back about 18 months. I received a letter from a constituent who was on the educational side of the establishment, which is not in my constituency but in that of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) who, I note, is present today. The letter drew my attention to the deficiencies in education provision, and I asked parliamentary questions to which I received full and helpful answers from the Home Office.
The impression of an institution in crisis was reinforced by two subsequent visits and by discussions with visitors and members of staff, and it was confirmed by the chief inspector's report. The report's introductory paragraph is more eloquent than I could ever be. It says:
This report on an unannounced inspection … is, without doubt, the most disturbing that I have ever had to make in my three years as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. I have to disclose to the public not only that conditions and treatment, of the 922 children and young prisoners … are, in many instances, totally unacceptable. They are, in many instances, worse than when I reported on them two years ago and reveal a history of neglect of those committed to their charge and a failure to meet the demands of society to tackle the problem of offending behaviour.
The report goes on to say:
A picture emerges of an institution and staff overwhelmed. Whatever the cause, it must be tackled root and branch now.
I asked for this debate in the context of the report and the strength of that conclusion. The report says everything that needs to be said on the subject.
The start of the problem is chronic overcrowding, which originated in the early 1990s with a massive build-up of Feltham to serve the whole of London. The number of inmates increased by about 150 per cent. between 1992 and 1996. The premises and number of staff are not adequate to cope with so many prisoners.
When I visited the centre about three weeks ago, I was told that the official staff ratio is 5:1, but that, because of recruitment difficulties and unfilled vacancies, it is frequently far worse. Staff are often sick and there are simply not enough staff on the premises to provide supervision for recreation and association, so, for much of the time, many prisoners are on what is described as a basic regime: they are locked in their cells for 22 hours a day. That applies to unconvicted remand prisoners as well as convicted prisoners; to juveniles of 15 as well as young men convicted of serious offences.
The Minister has been to the prison and will know that often two young men spend 22 hours a day in a small cell, eating, using the toilet and sleeping within a few feet of one another. Doubling up has become routine practice. There is a protocol to manage the situation, but the inspector describes one case of a 16-year-old on remand for a relatively minor offence, sharing a cell with a hardened young criminal with a violent record.

Such mixing of criminals and remand prisoners appears to be common and can only perpetuate many of the difficulties that young people have in the institution.
Another problem is the simple physical squalor. The Minister will recognise that there is a contrast: when one goes into premises with attractive gardens and relatively modern buildings one is not prepared for the sheer filth that is recorded in graphic detail in the report. Young men who frequently have no change of underclothes for a week use blankets and mattresses that are filthy, while clean blankets and mattresses stay in the cupboards.
For some reason, no one in the institution seems to know how to repair showers. Two or three weeks ago, I visited the wing on which the chief inspector had reported, and the showers were still not working, so people were still not washing. There is an overriding feeling of physical squalor. With 900-plus adolescents and young men in an institution, there are bound to be hygiene problems, but those are compounded by the way in which the system is managed and by the sheer lack of resources and staff.
More serious than the overcrowding and the dirt is the neglect of the special needs of many of the people coming into the centre. Many are no doubt difficult criminals who need to be locked away to protect society, but many are seriously vulnerable. The report shows that about 25 per cent. of all those entering the prison are users of the highly addictive crack cocaine. Many are in serious difficulties with drugs, but there is no organised detoxification or rehabilitation programme.
Many of the inmates have serious mental health problems. A separate Home Office study showed that roughly a third of prisoners in young offenders institutions need some form of psychiatric attention, but the number of psychiatrists in the prison was cut in the early 1990s and has not been restored.
One of the most damaging sections of the report relates to conditions in the medical unit. There are supposed to be 13 members of staff, but there are nine vacancies and four members of staff are on long-term sickness, so there are simply not enough nurses to look after the patients. I believe that a typical ratio is 30 patients to two members of staff. There is no supervision, so the wards are locked, and the problem is getting worse.
Education—probably the most important requirement of many of the young people—is seriously deficient. I do not want to be wholly negative, and the improvement in the number of hours of education provided is a positive angle that I would like to put on the record, but the report makes it clear that the education is often totally inappropriate. There is virtually no provision for the more academically gifted inmates or for those with moderate learning difficulties.
A comparison between Feltham and a comparable centre such as Aylesbury, which has more money but about half the number of inmates, shows the poverty of Feltham's education provision. That cannot be wholly illustrated by statistics. When I visited Feltham, something happened that many of the inmates recognised as typical. A rehabilitation programme to help people not to reoffend had been long prepared for and there was a great deal of expectation about it, with staff working enthusiastically; but a message came through from the Home Office that there were new priorities and the programme was cancelled at the last minute. One cannot measure the demotivating effect of such decisions.
Many of the inmates indulge in what is rather archly called self-harm. A few years ago, the institution had a reputation for suicides. Fortunately, there have been no suicides for a couple of years, but there is almost one case a day of self-harm of varying degrees of seriousness.
The inspector's report gives the figures on violence. I think that there were 78 assaults on prison officers and about 200 on fellow prisoners in the last year for which figures are available. That is a very high incidence of violence. That is one reason why the prisoners are locked away. There are not enough staff to supervise them and prevent violence. One of the most damning statistics that I discovered in my background work was that almost 90 per cent. of young offenders in the institution reoffend. There is virtually no success in preventing repeat offending. The phrase "the university of crime" is often misused, but it seems an appropriate description to use in this case.
The report asks who is to blame: who is responsible and accountable? It makes some damning comments about management with a big "M"—I am not sure who the operational manager is. The report states:
A senior manager shared his view of the establishment with us. He considered that there were examples of good staff and volunteers doing good things with young people in many departments but that the core of the institution was rotten.
Who is responsible for that? The report is understandably reluctant to blame the staff, who it says are overwhelmed and are doing an impossible job. I met many officers who are genuinely idealistic and hard working. However, they cannot cope. Management at the centre is a problem. For example, a Minister should not have to intervene to solve hygiene problems: that is a matter for management on the ground.
If, as the report says, the problem is not with management and staff, is it with the Home Office? Who in the Home Office is managing this institution? Who makes the decisions about funding and priorities? Who ensured that the 1996 recommendations were not implemented? There is a serious problem of accountability, which has implications for Ministers. The present Minister inherited this problem so it is not reasonable to saddle him with the responsibility, but the fact is that conditions at the establishment have deteriorated over the past two years. Somebody made decisions at a ministerial level to freeze the budget of the young offenders institution since 1993–94 in nominal terms—its budget is falling in real terms at a time of crisis. Who is making those decisions?
There is a failure not just on the part of the centre and at Home Office and ministerial level, but in the system as a whole. I was shocked to discover in the report that only 29 of 200 inmates interviewed had been told about bail provisions while in the magistrates court. Many remand prisoners should not be incarcerated: they should be out on bail. However, they do not know about bail provisions. Many of them are young blacks—about half of the prisoners in the institution are from ethnic minorities—who are going straight from the streets to prison and into a life of crime. That is often a result of the workings of the magistrates court system and the total failure of the bail system. The report pointed to a key failure in local authority homes and produced an enormous amount of evidence to that effect. It found that some 40 per cent. of inmates passed through local authority homes, which

failed them utterly. There is evidence of a lack of care, and of abuse. It is a catalogue of disasters in Government decision making at all levels.
I do not know whether other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall conclude. What should be done now? First, there is a clear need for new premises to separate the juveniles from the adults and the remand prisoners from the convicted prisoners. I know that the Government have plans for a new centre, which I hope the Minister will describe today.
A second, more serious, problem is staffing and resources for staffing. There are not enough people on the ground—whether they are warders, medical staff or teachers. Where is the wherewithal to rectify that problem? It is easy to ask for more money, but there is a problem of priorities within the Home Office. Why does a centre such as Medway receive roughly 10 times as much funding per capita as the young offenders institution in London? Somebody has their priorities totally wrong. How will that staffing and resources problem be rectified?
Thirdly, there is an issue of joined-up government here: the relationship between the Home Office and both the health service and the education system. For example, we must ensure that money directed to local authorities for education is passported to the prison so that young prisoners get some basic education.
Fourthly, what plans do the Government have to try to keep people out of prison in the first place? We know that pilot programmes are being conducted in Scotland and in the Thames valley to ensure that many young offenders—whether remand cases or not—do not enter the prison system. What is being done to achieve that objective?
Finally—and perhaps most important—the most shocking thing about the report is that its findings were made two years ago. The situation has got worse and nobody appears to be responsible. Will the Minister confirm who is responsible? Is the Home Secretary or a named individual in the Prison Service willing to take personal responsibility for ensuring that the recommendations made in this report—described in most trenchant terms for a document of this kind—are implemented?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this Adjournment debate and raising this important matter. The chief inspector of prisons, the board of visitors and others have raised serious concerns about the operation of Feltham young offenders institution, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising some of those concerns and for giving me the opportunity to respond to them.
I shall answer briefly the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in the concluding part of his speech. The first responsibility for Feltham or any other institution for that matter, lies with the Prison Service and the new Director General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey. Responsibility is then devolved through the area management structure to the governors. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear almost as soon as he came to office after the election that Ministers are no longer prepared to make an artificial division between policy and operations, and pretend that it is someone


else's fault. Unlike the previous Government, we accept that, in the final analysis, we are responsible for what goes on in the Prison Service. We take that responsibility very seriously.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention that I have visited the establishment. It is also significant that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited that institution on 13 February 1998, as did the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), on 6 April 1998. There has been a high level of ministerial interest in the establishment.
The chief inspector's report of his short, unannounced inspection of Feltham young offenders institution last December is highly critical—I have no wish to pretend otherwise. It is particularly critical of the fact that few of the recommendations in the chief inspector's report of the full inspection of Feltham, which took place in 1996, have been dealt with. My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State, the Home Secretary and I found aspects of that report shocking, and I well understand the anger and concern expressed by the hon. Member for Twickenham about what has been done and what needs to be done. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not cover in the time available all of the issues that he has raised. I give an undertaking to write to him about any of the areas that I am unable to touch upon.
The Prison Service and the Government are determined to turn the establishment around and to make further substantial progress on the serious concerns that have been raised. The newly appointed governor, Niall Clifford, who took up his post in April, and the new area manager responsible for Feltham have been charged with that task. However, in recognising the problems, we should not overlook the successes at Feltham as reported by the chief inspector. They include the Nightingale pre-release course and the Quail murder charge project, both of which received recognition recently in the form of Butler trust awards.
The chief inspector said that "virtually nothing" had been done to action the recommendations in the 1996 report. I do not believe that that statement is wholly true; nor do I accept that there has been a marked decline in conditions as suggested. However, it is true that progress has been too slow in improving conditions in some areas. Fundamental problems undoubtedly existed at Feltham, and the Prison Service published an action plan addressing all the chief inspector's recommendations—almost all of which were accepted in principle.
Some recommendations, however, would be very resource intensive, and implementing all 181 recommendations immediately would have been prohibitively expensive and, perhaps, physically impossible. Where action on recommendations was not taken, the reasons are almost without exception related to population pressures, to which the hon. Gentleman referred; funding and recruitment difficulties, or industrial relations issues. That said, some areas in Feltham have improved since the chief inspector's 1996 visit, and the additional resources that have been made available through the comprehensive spending review should, if they are used properly, ensure that further progress can now be made.
In response to the most recent inspection report, the Director General of the Prison Service established a task force, led by a senior governor when the report was made available to the Prison Service. The task force has charted a plan for improvement that we intend will be implemented over the next six months. To that end, an additional £320,000 was immediately made available for 1998–99 and a further £500,000 is available for 1999–2000.
Further additional funding has been made available through the comprehensive spending review, and that includes £700,000 for extra education, the drugs strategy and a bail information scheme, all of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The drugs strategy and bail information scheme are particularly important. The Government have made available £2 million for a new regime for prisoners under the age of 18. The task force has also commissioned a scoping study to consider long-term problems and their underlying causes.
I shall turn now to the specific and important concerns raised by the chief inspector and echoed by the hon. Gentleman today. Concern was expressed by the chief inspector about the lack of practical support from senior Prison Service management. The director general has recently agreed in principle with the area manager an outline strategic development plan for Feltham which will not only directly address many of the chief inspector's concerns, but chart the establishment's direction for the next three years and provide for the separation of the site into dedicated under-18 and young offender establishments.
More specifically, the plan rightly addresses the treatment of remand prisoners and changes the way in which the Kestrel unit is operated to ensure, as far as possible, that remand prisoners return from court to the same unit and staff, thereby satisfying one of the major criticisms made by the chief inspector. The change in the operation of the Kestrel unit is planned to start on 7 June.
The strategic plan as a whole illustrates clearly the commitment that Prison Service managers are making to the future development of Feltham. The new area manager regularly visits the establishment to monitor progress on the action plan and, importantly, to lend support to the improvements that the new governor is already making.
The hon. Gentleman referred to hygiene. Conditions at Feltham are described by the chief inspector as disgracefully impoverished and filthy. The hon. Gentleman made a similar point in his speech. The general cleanliness of the establishment is being improved. Immediate improvements to cleaning schedules and mattress and blanket provision are in hand. Since December, 600 mattresses have been replaced and more are being made available. New cleaning schedules and arrangements for inspections have also been introduced to ensure that cleaning takes place, and senior managers have a direct role in those inspections. In addition, new laundry facilities are being made available at another prison. Funding was made available almost immediately to undertake a backlog of small repairs. It appears that the shower has been overlooked, but I hope that progress will now be made on that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the level of regime at Feltham and time spent out of cell, which were covered in the chief inspector's report. As the hon. Gentleman conceded, Feltham, along with the rest of the prison


estate, has experienced pressure from the increase in the prison population, particularly the extra remand prisoners. That has inevitably put a strain on the provision of productive regimes for the young offenders in its care.
That said, the staffing and operation of some units requires improvements in certain areas, and the governor and Prison Service senior managers are working hard to achieve those. As a result, plans are well advanced to reduce the number of remand prisoners at Feltham by using accommodation soon to be available in other establishments closer to prisoners' home areas. That should also significantly reduce the number of prisoners sharing cells.
Efforts to improve time out of cell have also been affected by staffing problems, including an above-average level of sickness and difficulties in recruiting good-quality staff. Remedial action has been taken to improve recruitment at Feltham, and, as a result, 10 new officers started training in April.

Mr. Richard Allan: Some of us have been concerned because there seems to have been a slowdown in the provision of local authority secure accommodation for remand prisoners. The Minister just said that he expects more places to be available. Does that mean that more local authority secure accommodation will be coming on-stream?

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not want to go into the facts and figures on that issue. I will perhaps respond to his question by letter. That lack of accommodation is clearly a problem, as he as pointed out, and we are trying to tackle it.
I have already mentioned that £2 million has been made available to provide a new regime for prisoners under the age of 18. I shall return to that matter on another occasion, when I will perhaps be able to deal with it in more detail.
Feltham is the only young offender remand centre serving London. The number of prisoners at Feltham has already been reduced by 57 to ease pressure on the

establishment and facilitate the opening of a new health care centre. The number of prisoners will be further reduced by at least 90 to allow for the refurbishment of other units and to end overcrowding. There will be an overall reduction in the proportion of remand prisoners as a result of a reduction in court catchment areas.
The Prison Service has for some years been looking for a site to ease the pressure on Feltham and has recently purchased a site next to Belmarsh prison. A planning application to build a young offender establishment serving east London and Essex is being taken forward. Unfortunately, however, it is unlikely that the new establishment will open before late 2002, at the earliest.
The hon. Member for Twickenham expressed concerns about health care. Those have been addressed in the existing Prison Service plan to move the in-patient facility to the newly refurbished health care centre which was implemented at the end of March. A shortage of health care staff and lack of staff continuity is being addressed in a number of ways including recruitment campaigns and secondment of nurses from a local NHS trust. It is not true to say that nothing has been done to improve health care at Feltham. Progress is being made, and we hope that there will be more progress in future.
On 29 March, we announced that, for the first time nationally—this is the joined-up government to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the Prison Service and the NHS will take a joint and systematic look at prisoners' health needs, the quality of the services available and the delivery mechanisms that are needed to meet those needs.
In conclusion, the director general, my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State, the Home Secretary and I all accept that much needs to be done at Feltham. I hope that the measures that I have outlined today—particularly the setting up of the task force, the commitment of additional funding and the improved health care arrangements—will go some way towards reassuring the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to ensuring that the required improvements will be made. We take our responsibility seriously. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.

Television (Protection of Children)

1 pm

Mr. John Heppell: My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has drawn the short straw, as Ministers from many Departments could have replied to this debate.
I should at the outset thank Nottingham city council, which has been pursuing the matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who I understand has written to the Secretaries of State for Health and for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Secretary on the matter. I almost get the feeling that he is working his way through the Cabinet to ensure that everybody is aware of his concerns. Although this matter pales into insignificance given recent events in Nottingham concerning child protection, it must nevertheless be addressed.
In the spring of 1998, a television company, October Films, began filming children in Nottingham for a documentary that was to be called "Staying Lost". Its motives seemed commendable; indeed, I suspect that it began with all the right motives. It wanted to
expose the true state of Britain's street children and the agencies that fail them".
I should make it clear that I would wish October Films and others to do that; I would applaud such work. I should also make it clear that I do not seek to defend Nottingham city council or the social services department. I seek to protect children; that is the only motive for my action in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has now joined me. With my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), all Nottingham Members of Parliament are agreed on the issue.
Although October Films began with the very good motive of championing the cause of these children, unfortunately its work did not have that effect. The best scenario would be that it had a negative effect on the children; the worst that the children were exploited in the production of the film.
We are talking about five very vulnerable delinquent children who, under anyone's definition, would be described as at risk. We are talking about two 15-year-old girls, both of whom were engaged in prostitution. One was accommodated by the local authority and the mother of the other had approached the social services department and asked for help. We are talking about three boys of 14, 13 and 12 years old. One child has a care order, one an interim care order, one is on the child protection register and two are on bail. I am trying to convey to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister, that we are talking about children who are extremely vulnerable and with whom social workers find it difficult to work at any time. Once the film crew arrived, they found such work impossible.
Several allegations began to come out about what the film crew were doing. There were allegations that some of the scenes were staged, that the children were not homeless in the sense that we would recognise, and that vulnerable children were being encouraged to act anti-socially and irresponsibly. Some allegations were specific: microphones were hidden on the girls before they solicited for prostitution.
Other hon. Members and I got to know about the matter when, back on 18 August, the local newspaper reported that the city council was threatening legal action against a television film crew. The leader of the city council was specific. He was quoted as saying to the film company, "Get Out Of Town", and asked it to leave the care and responsibility of the children to the people who are supposed to look after them.
The following day, several articles appeared in national newspapers under headlines such as
TV crew 'faked child scenes'",
Film of street children 'set up'",
Care home children 'taken out to beg for Channel 4 film'",
and so on. If the city council was to fulfil its statutory duty, it could do nothing but act, which I welcome.
I have not mentioned many of the allegations because they have been denied and the city council has not pursued them—some are much more serious. However, some allegations were not denied. As a result, the city council took October Films to court. I shall quote now from the judgment of Sir Stephen Brown, president of the Family Division, and return to it later, too. I refer the House to page 9 of his judgment, on which it says, following his acceptance of some denials:
I accept their denial. Nevertheless there is an acceptance of the fact that certain of the children were wired up as alleged. Further on one occasion Mr. Roberts"—
one member of the television company—
did buy vodka for one of the young girls after filming and it is accepted that the film crew accompanied the children on the train ride to Skegness which was of course so far as the boys were concerned an illicit venture both being on bail and subject to curfew and not intending to pay their fares.
Even if one accepts every denial, the things to which they admitted are cause for great concern.
As a result of the city council going to court, a decent judgment was made. An injunction was never granted because the company agreed that it would do certain things: it would cease to contact four of the five children whom they were hoping to film for the documentary. The fifth child was back with her parents, and her mother had given consent to the filming.
Given that, people may ask why I am concerned about the matter. I will tell the House my worry. In some respects, I do not mind whether things were set up. The issue is whether, just because somebody possesses a video recorder, he or she should be able to film vulnerable children without parental consent. The film company specifically stated that, as far as it was concerned, it needed neither parental nor local authority consent, even though many of the children were in care. It says that all it needed was the consent of the children.
All the children were aged under 16. One may accept the consent of a 15-year-old, but the three boys were aged 14, 13 and 12. What if they had been aged 11, 10 and nine? When does the need for parental consent come into play? That is one of the most important points. There must be freedom of the press, but it should not be at the expense of the welfare of vulnerable children.
Page 21 of the judgment states:
They approached these children without parental consent or knowledge and indeed without the knowledge of anybody whose duty was to seek to afford a degree of supervisory assistance to the children. Undoubtedly misunderstandings occurred as a result.


Their conduct went far beyond merely observing the children. I am satisfied that in this case the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court has been properly invoked in respect of the effects of the filming and of the close contact involved in the filming operation on the upbringing of these children. The 'hanging around' the film crew and the excitement which the operation involved undoubtedly affected all these children. I have heard the oral evidence of Mr. Roberts and of Miss Gordon and the oral evidence of the Director of Social Services. The Official Solicitor has commented upon their different perspectives and he has expressed the opinion that he has no doubt about the good faith of all those concerned in this matter.
Good faith is not enough. I accept that the company began with good intentions—to expose matters if they were wrong. I am sure that that can be done without putting children at risk. I hope that we will be able to ensure that such people must have parental consent.
Secondly, the people from the film company stayed with the children for months on end, to gain their trust. They say themselves that the idea was to build a close relationship with the children. People who intend to be with children for months, building a close relationship with them, should be subject to the vetting to which every local authority worker is subject. We should ensure that such checks are conducted in future.
The third issue concerns the Independent Television Commission. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North wrote to what seemed like half the Cabinet on this issue. He also wrote to the ITC. I found it worrying that the judge said that he would not comment on the conduct of the film crews, as it was not his job to do so. He said that that was a job for the ITC.
Unfortunately, when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North wrote to the ITC—he telephoned as well—it wrote back:
As I explained, the ITC has no powers to obtain tapes or otherwise intervene in programme content before broadcast.
I believe that the ITC rules need to be changed, so that if it sees that someone is breaking its code, it may step in at the beginning.
The issue is not about the content of the final production. I talked to someone this morning who said, "We shall not know whether you are right until we see the final product." The documentary might be brilliant. It might be a "Cathy Come Home" type documentary, which will fire up people to make significant changes. That is not the issue. The issue is whether, in the making of that documentary, children have been harmed. We cannot allow the ends to justify the means. We cannot allow children to be hurt, to be left without protection, in order to create a good documentary. I hope that the ITC will tighten its code of practice to try to ensure that this does not happen again, as I fear that it may.
In some respects, we are lucky that some of the children involved were in care. Would a parent with a delinquent child have been able to take on the film company, to take on Channel 4, and to go to court? I suspect not.
We have had the judgment, but I can envisage a similar situation developing. Nothing has changed. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues, especially in the Home Department, will seek to prevent that by making changes.
I have little time left, but I make a plea about something else. Such subjects can provoke extreme emotion. In the past week in Nottingham, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North knows, I have had to consider what is probably one of the most emotionally loaded issues. There is discussion about paedophiles being admitted to a

unit in my constituency. I have found that it tends to bring out the worst in people. I simply say that I want the subject of today's debate to be dealt with in a non-emotional way, just as I want that issue to be dealt with in a non-emotional way.
In relation to such issues, our prime—many would say our only—concern should be the protection of children. People can rest assured that, in dealing with such situations in future, the protection of children will be my overriding concern.
I hope that, at some time, my hon. Friend the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office will address their minds to future legislation to ensure that the general public are protected, not only from paedophiles, but from paedophiles who are murderers or torturers—the worst type of people, who are being released on to our streets. I hope that the Government will introduce legislation that ensures not only that those people are secure, but that the public know that they are secure. That aspect of the law needs to be changed, and probably the law needs to be changed as it relates to the filming of children.
I do not want to overburden broadcasting with regulations and I do not want to stifle the freedom of the press, but I do not believe that the press can go unfettered—that they can justify anything that they do by saying that they have a right to give children a voice, as one of the reporters said to us. If children are given a voice, but the process of doing so wrecks their lives—there is some evidence that, indirectly, harm was done to these children—we cannot accept that type of freedom.

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) for securing the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who wrote to me at length on the issue. So disturbed was I when I received that letter that he may recall that I sought him out as soon as possible to speak to him about it. When we responded to him, we made the point that broadcasting items are matters for the broadcasters and regulatory authorities, and that there is a limited extent to which the Government can intervene. However, I believe that it is important, given the concern expressed about this matter by all Nottingham Members and the fact that it has been raised in the House, that we give the issue a proper airing. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East said that I had drawn the short straw. It is true that some of the matters that he has raised are ones for my colleagues in another Department, and I shall ensure that those are brought to their attention.
First, I shall set the scene. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East has spoken in detail about what happened. He has made a point of not becoming too emotional about this issue. It is always easy, especially where children are concerned, to become too emotional. I thank him for the measured way in which he has raised the subject. As he said, it concerns a documentary series called "Staying Lost", which October Films has been making for the past two years. The documentary focuses on children in care who end up living on the streets.
Nottingham City council brought the matter to court, accusing the programme makers of faking scenes, and maintained that parental consent should be given before


children were allowed to appear in such programmes. Earlier this month, the High Court cleared October Films of faking scenes. As a result of the court case, some of the children were withdrawn. However—it is important to place this on the record—the court expressed concern about the possibility of exploitation of vulnerable children by the media.
I applaud the desire of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East and for Nottingham, North to protect children. That should be a priority for all hon. Members. The children involved were especially vulnerable. It was alleged that they had been encouraged to act irresponsibly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East said, it was alleged that microphones were planted on the two young girls, aged only 15, who were engaging in prostitution. As he rightly said, that causes considerable concern, and it should be of great concern to the House. He also said that the freedom of the press should not be at the expense of vulnerable children. I wholeheartedly agree with that.
My hon. Friend mentioned the ITC. At the conclusion of my remarks, I shall answer his three main points. As he said, the response that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North received from the ITC explained that the ITC does not preview programmes. It is up to the licensees to decide, within the framework of the code and their licence, whether a specific item is suitable for broadcast. However, the ITC has a wide range of powers at its disposal to ensure compliance. They range from a formal warning to financial penalties and, in extreme cases, could lead to the shortening or revoking of a company's licence. Last year, the ITC fined Central Television £2 million for a serious breach of the programme code.
There is a paragraph in the programme code which, I am told, applies to children who are actors. It may not have been relevant in this case, but it may be apposite to place that paragraph on the record, because perhaps we

should extend to children who are not actors, but who appear in documentaries, a similar concern to that which we extend to children who are actors. Paragraph 6.4 says:
Performances by children under the upper limit of compulsory school age are controlled by Home Office regulations administered by the Local Education Authorities. All such performances, apart from those appearances expressly exempted under the Children and Young Persons Acts, require a licence from the Local Education Authority in whose area the child lives. Parental consent alone is not enough … Particular care should be taken to avoid causing any distress or alarm to children involved in programmes.
So that is already in the code. My hon. Friend is right, however, to say that the ITC may need to re-examine it.
When the matter first received coverage in the national press, Channel 4, the broadcaster that commissioned the film, made a statement that was reported in the following terms:
'The documentaries will reveal the true state of vulnerable children across the country who have, at some time, fallen out of parental control and slipped through the care net. The public has a right to see this series; Channel 4 believes the films deal with a subject of important public interest.'
A spokesman said the channel had subjected the allegations made against the programme company to 'careful scrutiny', and was satisfied that it acted with integrity. 'Channel 4 does not believe they have infringed the ITC's code, nor that they have harmed the interests of the children they are filming'".
As my hon. Friend said, when we get a chance to see the documentary, perhaps we can judge that for ourselves.
I shall sum up by responding to the three main points that my hon. Friend made. The point about parental consent, and also the important point about vetting people who are to work with young children, especially vulnerable children, are both matters for my colleagues in the Home Office, and I shall ensure that the concerns expressed will be brought to their attention.
I can also assure my hon. Friend that I shall convey his concerns to the ITC, and that my Department will think about whether there is any need for additional guidance. I shall come back to my hon. Friend on that subject.

Sitting suspended.

Palestine

Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I start by warmly welcoming the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), to his new position. I am sure that he will have a fascinating time as he familiarises himself with the important issues with which he will have to deal, not least Britain's vital interests in the middle east, which are of cardinal importance to this country. All those who are interested in the affairs of the middle east, from whatever position they may come, hope that the Minister will energetically pursue those matters, using the considerable expertise that he will have at his disposal to work with our many friends in the region.
I am grateful for the opportunity of a short debate to focus with renewed urgency on the situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories—the core of the middle east conflict for the past 50 years, and a dangerous time bomb.
Last year, Israel celebrated its 50th birthday, led by a Government who had defiantly set their face against the peace process and who had succeeded only in creating a new diplomatic freeze in the region. Prime Minister Netanyahu based his leadership on the unforgivable and dangerous premise that Israel could achieve lasting peace with its neighbours without making any significant concessions itself. It is to be hoped that the outcome of the Israeli general elections last week, with the resounding defeat of the rejectionist right, is at least in part an acknowledgement that that formula has failed.
I am sure that I will be joined by many in congratulating Ehud Barak on his historic win, and in reminding him of the great expectations that his victory has aroused around the world for real and sustainable progress in the middle east peace process. This is, therefore, an appropriate and sensible time to take stock of how best to capitalise on the changed political leadership in Israel, and how to support all those who are genuinely interested in pushing the peace process forward.
It is clear that, for a long time, the Israelis have been fighting a losing battle in Lebanon. Not only has the local southern Lebanese population been forced to endure years of misery and terror, but the Israeli forces of occupation have experienced a high toll of military casualties. Mr. Barak's announcement on the eve of his election victory that he was committing himself to doing
everything to take the army out of Lebanon within a year
is, therefore, welcome news.
However, it is of the utmost importance that withdrawal from Lebanon is but a part of a broader agreement and settlement between Lebanon, Syria and Israel. Before his tragic death in 1995, the late Yitzhak Rabin was involved in negotiations with the Syrian Government, which were reported to be close to reaching agreement on Israeli withdrawal from occupied Syrian territory. The Syrians will accept nothing less than total withdrawal from the Golan heights. That must be moved forward and the earlier talks built on.
The House will recall the recent excellent European Union declaration on the middle east peace process which

came from the Berlin summit in March this year and merits particular attention. The declaration states:
The European Union reaffirms the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state, and looks forward to the early fulfilment of this right. It appeals to the parties to strive in good faith for a negotiated solution on the basis of the existing agreements, without prejudice to this right, which is not subject to any veto. The European Union is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State on the basis of existing agreements and through negotiations would be the best guarantee of Israel's security … The European Union declares its readiness to consider the recognition of a Palestinian State in due course".
At this critical time, the European Union has boldly and correctly placed emphasis on Palestinian rights to self-determination as not just inalienable, but as one of the most critical elements of a sustainable peace in the region.
I am sure that hon. Members will join me in giving full support to the statement by the EU, and in assuring hon. Members who support the state of Israel that it must not be seen as an anti-Israel document. Indeed, it is fundamentally the reverse. Over the past three years, the Likud Government in Israel sought to deal with the knotty and painful requirements of the peace process by reducing Palestinian expectations of what they could hope to achieve through negotiation, and then by delivering even less. The statement by the EU is important because it reminds us that the Palestinian right to self-determination is not reducible—rather, a settlement must be achieved that seeks to realise and incorporate those rights.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a negotiated peace, as expressed in the European statement, is absolutely vital, and will he condemn the showering of northern Israel with rockets by Hezbollah, which occurred on the eve of the election of the Labour-led Government in Israel?

Mr. Soames: I agree with the hon. Lady that the only way in which to bring this painful, terrifying and extremely difficult problem to a conclusion is by negotiation. I have no doubt that, over the years, both sides have behaved thoroughly reprehensibly, but the behaviour of the Israeli Government in negotiation is not an elevating example.
The beginning of May this year marked the end of the five-year interim period of the Oslo peace agreement signed by Prime Minister Rabin and President Arafat in Cairo in 1994. Much has happened in that time, but everyone agrees that the Oslo peace process has so far failed to live up to expectations. Interestingly, however, there is now more serious talk than ever before of the inevitability of a Palestinian state.
Many hon. Members have had the opportunity in the past five years to travel to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, and to see the changing situation on the ground in the west bank and Jerusalem. Settlement activity, particularly under the Likud Government, has increased at a dreadful and spectacular pace. The west bank, which in the minds of the international community is to be the basic shape of any future Palestinian state, has been totally and grotesquely disfigured by the ever-increasing settler population, and significantly also by the swathes of land that have been taken to create new settlement roads that run from east to west to provide quick and easy access for the settlers into Israel.
Palestinian land and, therefore, Palestinian life in the west bank have become internally dislocated. The relentless growth of settlements and the confiscation of land for the exclusive use of the settler population have done profound and great damage to the quest for a viable Palestinian national economy, and to the legitimate Palestinian objectives of justice, security, peace and prosperity.
This scenario is not consistent with what we envisage when we speak of Palestinian rights to statehood, or the hopes that we had of the Oslo peace agreement. I remind hon. Members that it was the settlement of Har Homa that, two years ago, brought the peace process to a halt. At the very least, and as an act of good faith, the incoming Labour Government in Israel will, I hope, halt the building on that sensitive and highly symbolic settlement as a matter of priority, and will not allow it to continue to provide a festering focus of conflict between the Palestinian and the Israeli peoples. Incidentally, the settlements represent not only a moral and political crime, but a high aesthetic crime and should, therefore, be trebly condemned.
In article 1 of the 1949 fourth Geneva convention, the high contracting parties undertook to
respect and ensure respect for the convention in all circumstances.
In response to escalating Israeli violations of several key components of the convention—notably, those protecting the Palestinian population against illegal settlement policies, detention practices, the use of state-sanctioned torture and Israel's unilateral annexation of occupied Jerusalem—a conference of the high contracting parties has been convened. It will take place on 15 July in Geneva. It is to be hoped that Britain, together with its EU partners, will build on the positive spirit of the Berlin declaration by incorporating the Palestinian right of self-determination into the proceedings.
There is absolutely no doubt that Israeli settlement activity provokes bitter and wholly understandable resentment among the Palestinian population of the west bank and the Gaza strip, and it is a source of daily confrontation. I should like to think that, here in Europe, we differ substantially from the United States of America on that issue. Although the Americans—mystifyingly, but under the heel of the Zionist lobby—tend to view settlements as an annoying obstacle, we in Europe are absolutely clear that they are entirely illegal and that there can be no real peace while they continue to be built.

Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
I remind hon. Members that, unforgivably, 19 new settlements have been started in occupied Palestinian territory since last year's Wye memorandum was drawn up. We must hope, therefore, that we will see an end to the persistent, wilful and illegal defiance by Israel of international humanitarian law. When we talk of a democratic Palestinian state, we should think of a contiguous land mass with free international borders within which Palestinian citizens can move without restriction.
It is, therefore, clear that the current map of the west bank—where Palestinian land has been chopped up into many small areas by the configuration of settlements and

settlement roads, and has been dislocated internally and totally disconnected from the centre in Jerusalem—cannot deliver viable statehood. A great wrong has been done to the Palestinian people by those actions.
In an interview last week, Faisal Huseyni, the respected Palestinian official responsible for Jerusalem affairs said:
Palestine for us is Jerusalem and Jerusalem consists of the old city and not the holy places only. This is our history, our existence and our identity. Those who give up their identity give up their future. The Palestinian people will be dispersed if there is nothing to unite them. Jerusalem, our capital, unites all of us.
There can be no doubt about the strength of feeling about Jerusalem in the minds of the Palestinians and the Israelis. In deference to that strength of feeling and the difficulties ahead, we should reiterate our belief in the status of Jerusalem as it is protected by international law, which will act as the only meaningful bulwark against those parties that are trying to establish total power and control in Jerusalem. I remind the House that the Oslo agreements committed the Israeli and Palestinian authorities to negotiate the issue of Jerusalem as part of the final status negotiations, and we expect and hope that the incoming Israeli Government will make good that commitment.
I must remark again on the tremendous outpourings of joy, in Israel and beyond, at the election last week of Ehud Barak. The Palestinian National Authority and President Arafat expressed optimism that meaningful peace negotiations, including those dealing with final status issues, can resume and will be able to reach a just solution. We in Britain and in Europe have an obligation to support actively and constructively the on-going process of Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking, and to make good use of our extensive influence and expertise in these matters.
I urge the Minister not to allow himself to be blindly dragooned into following solely the United States on this issue, but to build on the excellent independent European Union declaration. Peace in the middle east is in the interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians and all those living in the region.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I thank the hon. Member for Mid–Sussex (Mr. Soames) for his kind words at the start of the debate. He lobbied me assiduously when I held my previous responsibilities and I am sure that I am grateful that, within a week of my taking on new responsibilities, he is raising with me questions relating to them.
I very much welcome the debate and the opportunity to clarify Government policy on the question of an independent Palestinian state. The debate is timely, because there is a new Prime Minister-elect in Israel. Ehud Barak has made clear his commitment to the peace process that began in Madrid in 1991, and of which the Oslo accords and interim agreement form a vital part. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary sent messages immediately after Mr. Barak's election, congratulating him on his stunning success and wishing him well in building a coalition.
A number of issues arise which have to be dealt with. First, what is the current state of play in the peace process? The question of statehood is inextricably bound up with progress on the peace process, and it is


appropriate to start there. The Government look forward to a relaunch of the peace process and we hope that, once a Government have been formed in Israel, both parties will proceed with implementation of the Wye memorandum. In particular, we hope that Israel will proceed with the second further redeployment of troops in the west bank. That will, we hope, open the way to the resumption of final status negotiations, but, in the meantime, we must allow Mr. Barak the necessary space and time to form his Government.
The United Kingdom played a leading role in the negotiation of the Berlin European Council declaration of 25 March on the middle east peace process. In it, we called on both parties to reaffirm their commitments to the basic principles, including "land for peace", established within the framework of Madrid, Oslo and the subsequent agreements, in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. We called for an early resumption of final status negotiations in the coming months on an accelerated basis and for those to be brought to a prompt conclusion, not prolonged indefinitely. We stated our belief that it should be possible to conclude the negotiations within a target period of one year and we expressed our readiness to work to facilitate an early conclusion to the negotiations. That is the position of the European Union and of the Government on the negotiations.
The active involvement of the United States is also crucial to the success of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. We therefore welcome American readiness, which was confirmed by a White House statement of 26 April, to help to launch final status negotiations once an Israeli Government have been formed, and to review and monitor their progress. The United States has also made it clear that it is prepared, with the consent of the parties, to bring them together within six months to review the status of their efforts and to facilitate reaching an agreement.
All Members will know that the issues remaining to be negotiated—the final status issues—are the most intractable. They are, notably, borders; the status of Jerusalem; arrangements for the refugees from conflicts dating back to 1948; what to do about settlements in the west bank; security arrangements; and, in practice, rights over the fresh water in the region. Under the interim agreement, negotiations on those issues were to have concluded by 4 May of this year. In fact, they have never really started, but there is now a real prospect of progress and that is why it is vital that all parties refrain from any unilateral acts that attempt to prejudge or predetermine the outcome of negotiations on final status issues.
The Government have condemned all such unilateral acts, by either side. For example, they have condemned the continuing building of settlements in the west bank and urged the Israeli Government to cease supporting such activity. That is also why the Government have urged the Palestinians not to make a unilateral declaration of independence. Such a unilateral act would be likely to threaten the prospects for a negotiated peace.
I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex will accept it from me that the Government's position on Palestinian statehood is as stated in the Berlin declaration. We agreed that the
European Union reaffirms the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state, and looks forward to the early fulfilment of this right. It appeals to

the parties to strive in good faith for a negotiated solution on the basis of the existing agreements, without prejudice to this right, which is not subject to any veto. The European Union is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State on the basis of existing agreements and through negotiations would be the best guarantee of Israel's security and Israel's acceptance as an equal partner in the region. The European Union declares its readiness to consider the recognition of a Palestinian State in due course in accordance with these basic principles".
That statement contains five key elements relevant to our debate. First, we declare our support for the peace process and call for an early resumption of final status negotiations on an accelerated basis. We declare our view that it should be possible to conclude those negotiations within a year, and we urge Israel and the Palestinians to refrain from activities that prejudge the outcome of the final status negotiations and from any activity contrary to international law.
Secondly, we emphasise that the Palestinians have an unqualified right to self-determination, including the option of a state, and that that right of self-determination is not subject to any veto. However, it may not be in their overall interest unilaterally to declare statehood at this stage.
Thirdly, we renew our appeal to the parties to come to a negotiated solution. We do that because we are convinced that agreement is the best route forward for both sides. Only through negotiation and agreement with the Arab countries can Israel guarantee security and acceptance as an equal partner in the Middle East. Only through negotiation and agreement with Israel could a Palestinian state be viable and secure from the start. That reflects the realities on the ground—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman).
Fourthly, we have made it clear that we are ready to consider the recognition of a Palestinian state in due course in accordance with the principles that we have stated. We consider that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination and that, looking at the situation on the ground, we consider statehood to be the best guarantee of peace in the region. However, only a negotiated statehood will guarantee peace: that is what we urge on the parties.
Finally—and it is an important element—we call for an early resumption of negotiation on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks of the peace process. Because we are seeking peace in the region, that will be achieved only when Israel has negotiated peace with all her neighbours. Israel has a negotiated peace with Egypt and with Jordan. We now look for a negotiated peace between Israel and Syria and Lebanon, as well as between Israel and the Palestinians. We very much welcome Ehud Barak's stated wish to have withdrawn troops from south Lebanon and to be in detailed negotiations with the Syrians within a year.
The hon. Member for Mid–Sussex used the phrase "viable statehood". It is necessary to consider the criteria that we would normally apply in deciding questions of recognition.
We do not in general consider a formal process of recognition to be a useful and constructive tool of foreign policy. Clearly, however, if a Palestinian state seeks membership of the United Nations, we shall have to consider whether to admit that state.
In customary international law, four basic criteria are considered when issues of recognition arise. These are whether the entity in question has a defined territory,


a permanent population, a Government able to exercise effective control over the state's territory, and independence in its external relations.
It seems clear that, at present, the Palestinian authority satisfies these criteria only in part. There is clearly a permanent population, but control of its territory and independence in its external relations are evidently far from absolute. Statehood itself is not specified as a final status issue, but if the Palestinians were to declare a state now, the situation could be unstable and the newly declared state's qualification for recognition under the four criteria might actually be weakened. A unilateral declaration of independence would certainly destroy the currently good prospects for the peace process. That is why we urge the Palestinians to refrain from any such declaration, and to commit themselves fully to the negotiations.
In the Berlin declaration, we make it clear that any state should be democratic, viable and peaceful. That element of the declaration should not be ignored. On any sensible analysis, the early viability of any state is likely to be vastly increased if it has come into being through negotiation and agreement. Although the Palestinians have made substantial progress towards democracy under difficult circumstances, they still have a long way to go.
To conclude, the Government want there to be a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. We hope that, following the Israeli elections—and once the new government has been formed in Israel—we may have the best opportunity for such negotiations. The current peace process offers by far the best opportunity

for such a peace. The Palestinians have the right of self-determination, including the option of a state, but we urge all parties to refrain from unilateral acts that would prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations, and we urge all parties to commit themselves to those negotiations.
Looking at the situation at present, we believe that the best solution for all parties is likely to be a democratic, viable, peaceful and sovereign Palestinian state, arrived at through negotiations.
The key word is "negotiation". The prospects for a negotiated peace are better now than for several years. We have stated our willingness to help in any way we can. We welcome the confirmation by the United States of its readiness to relaunch final status negotiations. We urge all parties to seize this opportunity and to commit themselves wholly to those negotiations.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1997–98

Resolved,
That there be laid before the House the accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1997–98, showing:

(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1998.
(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Good Friday Agreement

Mr. David Crausby: What progress is being made on issues of equality and human rights under the Good Friday agreement. [84436]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Human Rights Commission was established on 1 March this year. Interviews have also taken place for appointments to the Equality Commission. Since the Belfast agreement, legislation outlawing discrimination has been strengthened and extended to cover the provision of goods, facilities and services.

Mr. Crausby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that human rights and equality issues are a vital part of the Good Friday agreement, and that the provisions for human rights in Northern Ireland are contained in one of the most advanced regimes in the whole of the western world?

Mr. Murphy: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. The commission will play a key role in ensuring that the development and protection of human rights remain at the heart of the new system of government in Northern Ireland. It represents a major change in the pattern of human rights protection in the United Kingdom. Professor Brice Dickson, the chair of the commission, heads a highly capable and experienced team, which will work closely with the Assembly and the Government to protect the rights of people from all traditions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: When the Minister talks about human rights, will he please keep in mind the human rights of the paratroopers whose conduct on Bloody Sunday is the subject of inquiry? Does he agree that, if they are to be required to give evidence, it would be right—

Madam Speaker: Order. Judicial proceedings are taking place on that issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer, and knowing the House as well as he does he should be extremely careful in the questions that he puts to the Minister on these matters.

Mr. Hogg: I was being extremely careful.

Madam Speaker: I hope so.

Mr. Hogg: If the paratroopers are required to give evidence, is it not right, as a matter of Government policy, that they should be granted immunity from prosecution?

Mr. Murphy: I shall be equally careful, Madam Speaker and, as this is a matter for the courts, I shall not answer that question.

Madam Speaker: I entirely agree with the Minister, and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put that question.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will probably recall the statement that the

right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made about solicitors in Northern Ireland shortly before the death of Mr. Patrick Finucane.
To come back to the point, will the Minister tell us when he hopes the Equality Commission will come into operation?

Mr. Murphy: I hope that it will come into operation as soon as possible. My hon. Friend knows that the chief commissioner and the other members of the commission are in the process of being appointed. It has been a long and sometimes difficult exercise because, as my hon. Friend knows, the new commission will take over the duties of four other commissions. We now have agreement on the nature and functions of the new commissioners, but it will be some weeks yet before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is able to announce their names.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: If the new Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland is to be successful, it must enjoy the widespread support and confidence of the whole community. Is it not a reality that the Unionist community perceives a gross imbalance in the composition of the commission, in that there is no substantial or significant Unionist representation on it? What steps will the Secretary of State take to fulfil her statutory obligation to ensure that the composition of the Human Rights Commission reflects the balance of the community, because it does not do so at present?

Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering a number of options. It is her duty, as far as is practicable, to ensure that the commission reflects the community in Northern Ireland. It is not merely a question of Unionist or nationalist, Protestant or Catholic, but involves gender, age and professional background. It is important to note that, of the 150 applicants for these jobs, only a tiny handful said that they had Unionist sympathies.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The establishment of the commission is welcome, but the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) is right about the need for the Unionist community to be represented. Could there not also be a representative of bodies that bravely face violence and intimidation? Those bodies do not seem to be represented either.
Would not human rights in Northern Ireland be greatly benefited by an end to the breaking of limbs, and by the decommissioning of arms?

Mr. Murphy: No one would disagree with my hon. Friend's last two points. As for the commission, it is important to understand that its establishment results from the Good Friday agreement, and is reflected in statute. However, after devolution, provisions will enable other institutions in Northern Ireland to take into account reviews of people such as those referred to by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: May I raise the issue of the human rights of the families of the disappeared? Does the Minister agree that, now that the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill has


gone to another place, if the IRA does not produce the information that we all seek it will, yet again, have acted in a despicable manner?

Mr. Murphy: Yes. We expect progress within a very short time, possibly within days. We are talking to the Irish Government about this important matter.

Structural Funds

Shona McIsaac: What consultation she is having in Northern Ireland on the future of EU structural funding. [84438]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Mr. Paul Murphy): Consultation with social partners and local interests began last August, when we wrote to about 250 local interests to seek their views on the post-1999 structural funds. That was followed by a conference last week. Further consultation will take place over the coming months.

Shona McIsaac: I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that that demonstrates the support in the European Community for peace in Northern Ireland. Does he also agree that if we were ever to adopt any of the narrow-minded, inward-looking, navel-gazing, anti-European policies of the Conservative party, we would seriously jeopardise the peace process?

Mr. Murphy: I agree that our membership of the European Union has been a major factor in helping to bring about peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. May I also say something about the Berlin settlement? It is unique: it has no equivalent elsewhere in the European Union. The special peace programme amounts to about £260 million, and I believe that it gives us an opportunity to bring about a peaceful, positive and stable society in Northern Ireland.

Devolution

Mr. Don Touhig: What progress is being made towards devolution in Northern Ireland. [84439]

Mr. Bill Michie: What progress has been made in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [84440]

Mr. John Wilkinson: When she expects the Executive for Northern Ireland to assume its governmental responsibilities. [84441]

Miss Anne Begg: What progress is being made towards devolution in Northern Ireland. [84442]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): A great deal of progress has been made in implementing the Good Friday agreement. Practical preparations for devolution are complete, and a deadline of 30 June has been set. The Government and the parties are continuing to talk to resolve the outstanding issues.

Mr. Touhig: The Government have delivered on their pledges for devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern

Ireland. As one who represents a Welsh constituency, I consider today's opening of the Welsh Assembly to be an historic event for all the peoples of Britain. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it will be a great disappointment for the people of Northern Ireland if, having elected an Assembly nearly a year ago, they cannot join the people of Wales and Scotland in taking control of their own affairs on devolution day, 1 July?

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, that would be a great disappointment—not just for the Northern Ireland parties represented here, but, above all, for the people of Northern Ireland. A year ago, in the only poll that counts—a referendum—they demonstrated that they, too, wanted progress. Now they are scared: they are frightened that progress will not be made. I agree wholeheartedly that it would be an appalling tragedy if we failed to make that progress.

Mr. Michie: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the implementation of the Good Friday agreement and the recommendations on policing in Northern Ireland will not suggest that there is an equivalence between the law-abiding citizens who have been fighting for law and order and democracy in Northern Ireland, and those who have deliberately sought to destroy those things?

Marjorie Mowlam: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no equivalence between the two groups as he has outlined them; I can give him that assurance categorically. May I at the same time say to the police and to the other emergency services that they have worked so hard over the years to hold the fabric of Northern Ireland together that I should like—in terms of this question—to put that on record. It is important to do that now when we are working up to the parades, as we have on previous years. The police will be caught in the middle between both communities and will be there trying to hold the fabric of that society together and to uphold the rule of law. It is important that, with the Patten commission inquiry pending, that recognition is clearly given.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind the Secretary of State that paragraph 23 of the Belfast agreement is clear:
As a condition of appointment, Ministers … will affirm the terms of a Pledge of Office".
Paragraph (b) of the pledge is a
commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
No amount of vacuous sophistry or appeasement can in any sense permit political parties that are apologists for those who illegally hold weapons to participate in an elected Executive for the Province.

Marjorie Mowlam: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not a policy of appeasement. That pledge of office and the commitment to non-violence and a democratic way forward was made by the parties in the talks. We are slowly moving that process forward. Yes, there is violence on the fringes still. Since the beginning of May, the figures are something like 20 paramilitary beatings and 15 assaults. Some of those are by groups that want to destroy the process; others are by individuals. I study the information carefully—I can assure him of that—as I did with the security advisers whom I met at the beginning of the week.
I have hearsay. I have discussion with journalists, but I do not have evidence. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if I had evidence, in terms of the judgment that I review constantly in the round as to whether people should still be in the talks, I would act. At the moment, I do not have that information. I make it clear to him that, if I did, I would act accordingly.

Miss Begg: Having seen the pictures of the new Scottish Parliament sitting in Edinburgh and today's official opening of the Welsh Assembly, does my right hon. Friend share the frustrations of the House of Commons that there has been so little progress in setting up the Executive in Northern Ireland? Will she join me in encouraging the politicians there just to get on with it?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. We all share that frustration. It would be inhuman not to, but we have to understand, and it is difficult some days, that people are trying to change and change is not easy to cope with. I think that everyone wants progress to be made, none more so than the people of Northern Ireland. I do believe that, however slow it is, there is a commitment by the parties to try to make progress and that is what we are seeing at the moment. I am sure that the parties involved in the talks will hear the feelings of the whole House that we want progress to be made because, in the end, that is what the people of Northern Ireland want. I hope that, very soon, with the deadline of 30 June, that frustration declines considerably.

Mr. William Ross: Given that it appears that, if devolution takes place, Mr. Martin McGuinness will be the Secretary of State for Education, or in charge of education, in Northern Ireland, how will any teacher in any school in Northern Ireland convince the pupils under their care that past involvement in violence, thuggery, beating, mutilations, intimidation, arson, bombings and murder will be a bar to future preferment and advancement?

Marjorie Mowlam: What we are doing is implementing the Good Friday agreement, which was supported by the parties in the talks. Some parties that are not represented here today voted against it. They will be represented in the devolved Parliament, too, if they so choose, but what we are doing is implementing the Good Friday agreement.
As I have said so often in the House, we can live in the past, we definitely have to understand the history, but we should not live in the past. If we do, the violence will continue. With the Good Friday agreement, we have the best chance for many years to make progress. Yes, it is difficult. I do not enjoy talking to people with the kind of background that some of them have, but I prefer to talk than have people killed. That is what the Good Friday agreement, at base, is about.

Mr. Phil Willis: Liberal Democrat Members appreciate the difficulties facing the Secretary of State in trying to reach a compromise by 30 June. If that compromise is not achieved, and there is not a solution by that date, will she trigger d'Hondt?

Marjorie Mowlam: I should turn that around by saying that, at some point—for devolution to occur—

d'Hondt will have to be triggered. We shall be spending the next couple of weeks in trying to find a way of doing that.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As we work our way towards reaching agreement, on 30 June, does my right hon. Friend share my frustration at constantly hearing in the House remarks seeming to imply that all the violence is coming from one side? Will she join me in condemning current sectarian attacks against Catholics? What assessment has she made of those who are responsible for that particular violence?

Marjorie Mowlam: I support my hon. Friend's comment that violence—currently, more loyalist than Catholic—is being perpetrated by both extremes. However, that violence should be roundly condemned by all sides. As I said in reply to the question by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I constantly keep the situation under review and make assessments. My current assessment is that there is not sufficient evidence to make a judgment in the round that action should be taken. However, I should leave the House in no doubt that, if that evidence comes forward, we shall act accordingly.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State said that she wants to live not in the past, but in the present and the future. Will she therefore hail as a success implementation of the Good Friday agreement if terrorists and representatives of terrorist organisations are sitting in the Government of Northern Ireland while those same terrorist organisations—be it the IRA or others—hold on to their weapons?

Marjorie Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, as Ministers have said many times from the Dispatch Box, there will have to be both decommissioning and formation of the Executive. Both will have to happen: the Good Friday agreement will have to be implemented. Neither is a precondition, but both are obligations. We are currently working on a way in which to ensure that both happen.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State recall that the Prime Minister described the recent Hillsborough declaration as a "huge and significant milestone"? If that is so, why has the declaration's central plank—on IRA decommissioning of illegally held weapons—been jettisoned, and why are we now being told that Sinn Fein members should, before decommissioning, take their places in the Executive?

Marjorie Mowlam: That is a complete misrepresentation of current discussions. The Hillsborough declaration was the best that the two Governments could do to find a way forward in addressing the issues that I outlined in my previous reply. We are trying to address those issues now, as we have been for the past four weeks. The options currently being considered by the parties do not address the big issues of decommissioning and formation of the Executive, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but are a step towards addressing them, in the hope of making some progress in moving the process forward. Progress will not be made in a flash of immediacy, but will be made step


by step. We are now considering only one of those steps, and it does not include the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. MacKay: The questions that I have asked are essential and fundamental. There is no question that, in a democracy, such as ours, people should hold Executive office but not decommission their illegally held arms and explosives. It would hugely help the talks and the process if the Secretary of State would now promise the House that there are no circumstances in which Sinn Fein members would become Ministers in the Executive without having properly started to decommission their illegally held weapons.

Marjorie Mowlam: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the two issues are crucial—central—to the Good Friday agreement. No one is avoiding them. All one is trying to do—it is the nature of negotiations—is to try, slowly, to build the trust and confidence to move the process forward. The issues will be got to—they cannot be avoided; they are part of the agreement. The process that we are trying to achieve is one in which the parties reach a point at which they are able directly to address those issues. If we bang them on the table on day one, we are not likely to make progress. We are still at day one in trying to deal with the issue. That is the nature of the negotiations. We are trying to move issues forward step by step. It is for the parties, with our help and support, to do what they can to reach an accommodation on the issues.

Early Years Education

Charlotte Atkins: What progress has been made in the last year in the provision of early years education in Northern Ireland. [84444]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): Over the past year, significant progress has been made towards increasing the availability of pre-school education in Northern Ireland. In the 1998–99 school year, 2,200 additional places have been provided at a cost of £2.65 million. Resources have been made available in 1999–2000 to secure a further 2,300 free pre-school places, raising provision to almost 70 per cent. of the pre-school cohort.

Charlotte Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the crucial aspects of effective pre-school education must be quality of provision and access for the most disadvantaged? What are the Government doing to ensure that those features are key in Northern Ireland?

Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Access for the disadvantaged was worked into our pre-school education policy in the 1997 consultation document. She is right about quality and I should like to reassure her on four points. First, there will be a common curriculum in all settings. Secondly, nurseries will be inspected by education and training staff. Thirdly, the staff will be required to have training or qualifications in education or child care. Fourthly, from 1999–2000 there must be a qualified early years specialist involved in a way that will raise standards for children in those schools.

Mr. Roy Beggs: We in Northern Ireland congratulate the Government on the additional resources

that are being made available and the additional places that have been created for nursery school children. To what extent have the concerns of parents about the application of the criteria for entrance to nursery schools been met? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that new funding for future provision goes to the areas where there is currently clearly under–provision?

Mr. McFall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There have been some misconceptions about the issues. To deal with that, I established an advisory group comprising officials from my Department and the education and library boards. I have told them to keep in constant contact with Assembly representatives and Members of Parliament. We have targeted social disadvantage. From September, two out of every three places will be available to children of parents who are not disadvantaged, but there will be an allocation for the disadvantaged. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those measures on social disadvantage for some parts of his constituency.

Drumcree

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What assessment she has made of the prospects for achieving a local accommodation over the disputed parade at Drumcree this year. [84446]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Frank Blair, the director of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in Scotland, is continuing to work as a facilitator with the Government's full backing. I also support the efforts of others, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), to promote dialogue and resolve the issue. Agreement is clearly possible if good will exists. Local accommodation is in the interests of the whole community.

Mr. Savidge: I pay tribute to the Northern Ireland ministerial team, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all those who are making serious efforts to resolve the difficult problem. What is my hon. Friend's assessment of the possible impact on the Northern Ireland economy, including the tourist trade, of a failure to find agreement at Drumcree?

Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Another confrontation at Drumcree this year would damage the economy and would clearly hit the tourist trade yet again. Investors and visitors are deterred from coming to Northern Ireland by scenes of violence on the streets. I hope that both sides will fully engage with our initiatives and will seek to reach an accommodation for this year and future years.

Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister acknowledge that the situation at Drumcree has been greatly exacerbated by the decision of the Parades Commission last year not to let the parade go ahead? Does he also acknowledge that there are some problems for which there is no accommodation and there is likely to be no accommodation at Drumcree? Will the Government


therefore protect the rights of Orangemen who return to their Orange hall on the public highway and ensure that they have equal rights in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman was implacably opposed to the establishment of the Parades Commission and we had many healthy exchanges during the passing of that legislation. However, he also has a duty to encourage those who may be in conflict with the body that was established by Parliament to uphold the rule of law at all times. Of course, there are two sides to the issue and that is why the Government, from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister down, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) seek to do everything possible to achieve accommodation and find an answer to this difficult issue.

Restorative Justice

Angela Smith: What the objectives are of the new Government initiatives on restorative justice in Northern Ireland. [84447]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government support restorative justice because, when operated in co-operation with the formal justice system, it offers a positive, inclusive approach to dealing with the effects of crime by concentrating on restoring relationships between the victim, the offender and the community which are damaged by criminal or anti-social behaviour.

Angela Smith: I welcome that answer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that it is crucial, particularly in Northern Ireland, that restorative justice has the support of the community. Therefore, when he is considering local schemes, will he stress the importance of flexibility and local imagination to ensure that they work?

Mr. Ingram: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that. Those who have been putting the schemes together looked at similar schemes, such as those in New Zealand, and concepts such as family group conferencing and other new and imaginative ideas to try to find new ways forward. Of course such schemes must always work alongside the judicial process. We must ensure that individual human rights are always fully protected within the process of natural justice. The Government are being imaginative and we will listen to new and innovative ideas from the community.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the Minister's assurance and welcome the steps towards qualified restorative justice. Does he agree that when magistrates courts release people who are charged with heroin dealing, that is not restorative justice, but allows people out immediately to reoffend? Should there not be some cut-off point at which we realise that restorative justice cannot work?

Mr. Ingram: There will be occasions when restorative justice does not work. It depends on everyone co-operating with the process. The drug problem in Northern Ireland is not yet as prevalent as elsewhere in the United Kingdom or in Dublin in the Republic of Ireland.

However, the threat is there, and, for that reason, I am actively pursuing a major anti-drugs strategy that is consistent with the Government's approach.

Decommissioning

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If she will make a statement on progress on
(a) the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and (b) the creation of a Northern Ireland Executive. [84449]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): Progress is being made. It is slow and difficult. Sometimes it is four steps forward and three back, but people are still talking and not walking and that is what counts. Everyone is trying towards implementing the agreement in full.

Dr. Godman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Good Friday agreement requires the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons by May 2000 and that if the agreement is to work, progress must be made on all its aspects? Does she further agree that the people of Northern Ireland must be casting an envious eye on Cardiff and Edinburgh, where the Assembly and the Parliament are gathering momentum?

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes and yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Nick Hawkins: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday, 26 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today. I will also be attending the celebrations to mark the opening of the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the Prime Minister share the commitment of his socialist Members of the European Parliament to giving the European Union power over our savings taxes and capital taxes?

The Prime Minister: We set out our position yesterday on the savings tax. We believe in a sensible and constructive attitude in Europe that manages to secure victories for Britain in Europe, unlike the isolated and the divided regime of the Tories which brought us nothing but defeat in Europe.

Miss Anne Begg: Last week, this House voted for extra benefits to be paid to severely disabled young people, and it also saw the completion of the Standing Committee on the Disabled Rights Commission Bill, taking this country a step closer—or a roll closer, in my case—towards ensuring that there is an end to discrimination against disabled people. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that


all Government buildings and Departments will become models of good practice in dealing with disabled people, and that not only will the necessary ramps, lifts and toilets be in place, but that they will work when a disabled person wants to use them?

The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. It is important that the Government and the public sector give a proper lead in installing facilities and making them work. I am sorry if there have been such problems recently. We are proud to create the Disability Rights Commission, which is a big step forward. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, we will be providing more money for disabled people to help them with their problems and to help them to get back to work. We are making the necessary reforms to make sure that money goes to those who need help the most. Our reforms are right in principle and will make sure that, for the first time, many disabled people up and down the country will get the help that they need.

Mr. William Hague: Instead of negotiating an European Union directive on savings taxation, which includes the withholding tax and threatens thousands of jobs in this country, should not we be making clear that all such directives are unacceptable to this country? Should not the whole idea have been vetoed at the beginning?

The Prime Minister: The stories in some of the newspapers this morning that we have agreed to the withholding tax are, as we told them, complete and total nonsense. There is no change in our position. There will be no withholding tax imposed on Britain by Brussels. There will be no agreement to anything that damages the eurobond market. There will be no agreement; there has been no agreement; there is no agreement. However, we will win the argument—that is the difference.

Mr. Hague: If that is the case, why did the German Finance Minister say after yesterday's meeting that the withholding tax had taken a big step forward? How did he get that impression? How did it come about that the account of the meeting issued to Agence Europe says:
In the absence of the British point of view on the issue of"—
tax on savings—
the debate was short"?
How did it come about that the British Chancellor was present at a meeting at which the British point of view was absent? The account stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
undertook to clarify his country's position in June.
How convenient—to do so after the European elections. Is not it always the case that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor pretend to be robust and reassuring in the House of Commons, and are then pathetically weak in the Council of Ministers on these issues?

The Prime Minister: We have been asked to make proposals to deal in a better way with the tax evasion that, perfectly rightly, worries many countries in Europe. I have made it clear here—and I will do so again—that we will use the veto if necessary, but that it is better to win the argument, because there are many other issues on which we will require support from other countries.
On tax harmonisation and the veto, only 18 pieces of tax harmonisation have been agreed by any British Government, and all of them were agreed by the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. Hague: Every time I talk about the future, the Prime Minister talks about the past. Is it not time that the Government showed the way on taxes in Europe? Instead of all the rubbish in the European socialist manifesto that he has signed about harmful tax competition, should not we be celebrating tax competition, extending our tax advantages and widening the gap in taxes rather than trying to eliminate it?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we have got the lowest corporation tax ever, under a Labour Government. It is not only the 18 tax harmonisation measures that the Conservatives agreed: they agreed 42 extensions of qualified majority voting.
Because of our attitude, which seeks to be positive and engaged and to win in Europe, we have secured the rebate that the Conservatives said we would never secure; got better deals on structural funds than ever before, which they said that we could not do; secured the highlands and islands deal, which they said we would never get; and got the BSE ban lifted, which they had imposed. The choice is very, very simple. We can have isolation, division and failure with the Tories or constructive engagement, partnership and success under Labour.

Mr. Hague: What a stream of fiction. If there is nothing to worry about on tax, why are the 200 items of national tax measures now being harmonised by the EU treated as a Government secret, only discovered at all by internet users who speak Dutch? They do not normally look for the details of tax harmonisation proposals. After all the evasions, secrecies and half-truths over the measures, will the Prime Minister agree to publish the list of them?

The Prime Minister: May I deal with the supposed 200 hidden taxes? The Tories got that story on the front page of The Mail on Sunday, which would print any old rubbish that they send it. The secret proposal is in fact the Code of Conduct Committee, which is chaired by a Treasury Minister. So secret is it that we had a full debate on it in the House in December.

Mr. Hague: As usual, we get assertions from the Prime Minister that are total rubbish. There has been no debate about the 200 measures now before that committee. This is a Government who are supposed to believe in freedom of information. The Home Secretary said:
everyone will have the right … to information held by bodies across the public sector."—[Official Report, 24 May 1999;Vol.332,c.21.]
Will the Prime Minister now publish the full list of the 200 measures under discussion?

The Prime Minister: There are no 200 hidden measures, just as we have not given up the veto, agreed to a withholding tax or agreed, for example, to paper-boys, double-decker buses or curved bananas being banned, or any of the rest of the Euro-twaddle that the right hon. Gentleman comes out with. At some point, he and the other people who parrot the same nonsense in the


newspapers, should realise that Britain is in the European Union and it is right that we should be, so for heaven's sake let us make the best of it.

Mr. Hague: So the answer is no, the right hon. Gentleman will not publish the list. The trouble for the Government is that nobody can believe anything that they say on Europe. It is freedom of information on Monday and the concealment of information on Wednesday. It is tax competition here and tax harmonisation over there. The Prime Minister loves the pound at election time and wants to abolish it the rest of the time. Do not the people want the Government of this country to say what they mean, to do what they say and to keep us in Europe, not run by Europe?

The Prime Minister: On the Freedom of Information Bill, the previous Government had 18 years to introduce such a measure. We have now done it.
I have already dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's nonsense about tax. I return to this basic point: the withholding tax is a classic example of the right and the wrong ways to do business for Britain in Europe. There is a problem with tax evasion in European countries. We will not agree to anything that harms the City or the eurobond market or agree to Brussels imposing a withholding tax on Britain. However, as the Chancellor has secured, if we can show other countries a better way of dealing with their legitimate problems while protecting our interests, that is a better way to do business in Europe.
We had 18 years of Conservative Government and their diplomacy in Europe. What did it do? It led us to marginalisation, a lack of influence and the worst situation for Britain in Europe since the second world war. Slowly but surely, a different Government with a better attitude are rebuilding British power and influence. That is the best way to proceed: success under us; failure under the Conservatives.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I ask the Prime Minister to turn his mind to the situation in Yugoslavia? Does he accept that, after two months of bombing, seeing hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Kosovo, hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties in Yugoslavia and an environmental disaster caused by the use of depleted uranium and the bombing of chemical works, it is time to achieve a peace settlement by involving, rather than bypassing, the United Nations? Is it not time to involve Kofi Annan in a peacekeeping mission rather than watching NATO trying to undermine the situation and continue an illegal war? The United Nations should have been involved from the beginning.

The Prime Minister: First, on a point of fact, in the last day, the United Nations body responsible for the environment has said that the Serbian claims are nonsense and untrue—there has not been the environmental damage claimed. My hon. Friend referred to civilians who have died in Serbia, but I hoped that he would mention also the thousands of people who have been butchered in Kosovo.
We would dearly love it if the United Nations were able to come in, resolve the issue and allow the refugees to return. There have been 72 United Nations resolutions in the past few years asking Milosevic to do the right thing, but he is not a man who cares for the

United Nations. He is not acting according to international law: he is pursuing a policy of racial genocide. Anybody who believes in the basic principles of justice and humanity should support our case.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is not the significance of NATO's decision yesterday almost to double the ground forces around Kosovo simply that NATO has at last given itself the means of widening the option for the use of ground forces—if time requires or the military situation allows—from peacekeeping to peacemaking?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt at all that it is a significant and a right move, taken on the basis of NATO's comments yesterday. I think that it is important that we have demonstrated our clear intent and determination to make sure that there is a sufficient force so that the refugees can be allowed home properly.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that very important answer. Is it not also the case that NATO's much-loved phrase "keeping all options open" has, with an insufficient ground force until now, meant only one of two things: bombing or compromise? This important decision means that we have invested what was until now merely a declaration with the means of making it an imminent reality.

The Prime Minister: As I said, NATO's announcement was made in the terms that it expressed. There is a growing recognition that the air campaign is doing immense damage to Milosevic. In the past two days, scores of tanks and artillery in Kosovo have been hit. However, it is important to ensure that we have sufficient ground forces—we will need them on any basis—to do the job of getting the refugees back home.

Mr. Alan Johnson: The Prime Minister will be aware that there is wide cross-party support in the House for the ex-distant water trawlermen, who petitioned him this morning at 10 Downing street. Those men lost their jobs as a direct result of a Government decision; they were promised compensation in the House and have received nothing; £100 million was given to trawler owners, not one penny of which went to the crews. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the passage of time in no way diminishes the legitimacy of their claim, and will he assure me that his Government will give it urgent and proper consideration?

The Prime Minister: I certainly can assure my hon. Friend that we shall give urgent and proper consideration to any claim, but obviously I do so without prejudice to the outcome. We are aware of the strength of feeling and we are aware that the passage of time has not diminished it.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Why has the Prime Minister allowed the disgraced European Commissioners to remain in office for the past two months, drawing their salaries and making 120 important decisions? Is it not the case that their resignation was a complete and utter sham?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not the case, and there will soon be a new Commission. I make an appeal to the


Conservative party which will fall largely on deaf ears: it would be sensible, now that we have a new Commission President, and new Commissioners will soon be in position, if we tried just for once to work with them sensibly and constructively, rather than attacking them all the time.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Further to my right hon. Friend's exchanges with the leader of one of the two Conservative parties fighting the European elections, does he agree that the choice in Europe is between a Government who fight for Britain's interests, build coalitions with allies to get their way and have decisions made in their favour, and a party that stands on the sidelines shouting abuse and then experiences resounding electoral defeat, as it did two years ago?

The Prime Minister: That choice is very clear. I know that, in the European elections, people will not want to let the Conservatives in by the back door; no one wants that. The Conservative party's division on Europe obviously remains and is even being exhibited in these elections. A divided party cannot get the best deal for this country. We learned that when the Conservatives were in government, and we learn it now that they are in opposition.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents why, after two years of a Labour Government and in spite of much rhetoric from Ministers, they are worse off? They are worse off financially because of additional hidden taxes, an enormous hike in petrol prices and higher council tax bills, such as Labour and Liberal-controlled Hertfordshire county council's 9.5 per cent. increase this year. Their commuter journeys to London are disrupted by deteriorating train services—[Interruption.] It is true. Their NHS hospital waiting times have soared since May 1997, and Princess Alexandra hospital is closing 25 beds. In my constituency, more children than ever before are not being offered their first choice of school when they transfer from primary to secondary school.
Is it not the case that the Labour party misled the electorate at the general election and is incapable of fulfilling its promises?

The Prime Minister: First, living standards in this country are rising. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not mention that, under this Government, interest and mortgage rates are the lowest for more than 30 years. We are the Government who put the extra investment into schools and hospitals which her Front Benchers described as irresponsible. We are the Government who are introducing the working families tax credit, which will greatly help low-income families. We introduced the statutory minimum wage. We are reducing class sizes. We are getting waiting lists down. Those are all promises fulfilled.

Mr. Mark Todd: Will the Prime Minister ensure that the network of small town and rural post offices does not fall victim to the correct abandonment of the Horizon project earlier this week? That was an ill-conceived and public relations-led Tory information technology project which failed. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that my post offices will stay open?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we remain committed to a nationwide network of post

offices. The reforms that we announced at the end of last year aim to help the Post Office to continue to provide such a network. Those reforms will ensure the strict protection of the public service commitment, including universal public service obligations.
We announced earlier this week that the network of almost 19,000 post offices will be equipped with a modern, on-line IT system by 2001. That will enable rural post offices to modernise their existing services and secure their viable long-term future.

Mr. John Hayes: This is a straightforward, specific question; I hope that it will be answered in a similar vein. Why, for secondary, nursery and upper-age primary school pupils, are class sizes getting larger under Labour?

The Prime Minister: They are not getting larger. For the first time—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not like the answer. For primary school pupils, class sizes are falling; we have got 130,000 five, six and seven-year-olds out of class sizes of more than 30, where they used to be under the Government whom he supported; and in secondary schools, we are getting the adult-pupil and teacher-pupil ratios down. The extra investment that we are making is already paying dividends.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to reform of the welfare state—which was created by a Labour Government and will be reformed by a Labour Government—and the chaotic welfare system that they inherited from the previous Government? Will he confirm that they will tackle both those reforms to end abuse of the system while remaining sensitive to the needs of people who, through no fault of their own, are entirely dependent on benefits, which are still very low?

The Prime Minister: In the first two years of this Government, social security spending has been controlled for the first time in ages. Through the new deal, we have been able to offer young people and the long-term unemployed a chance to go back to work and get skills and training. For the first time, we have offered single parents the chance of proper child care so that they can go to work if they wish. We are reforming the welfare state, but in a way that is humane and just, and gets help to people who really need it.
What a contrast with the Conservative Government, who, for 18 years, talked about welfare reform, but under whom the costs doubled, the number of those on benefit rose and rose and no young person in the inner city got the chance of employment, which we are now providing. The Labour party is the party of radical welfare reform, which is conducted in the right and proper way.

Mr. James Gray: May I ask the Prime Minister a simple numerical question, which is incapable of being subject to spin or general guff? What was the average secondary school class size when he came to power, and what is it today?

The Prime Minister: As I have just pointed out—[Interruption.] The ratio of teachers to pupils in secondary schools is falling; it is not rising. Not merely is the ratio


falling in secondary schools, but primary school class sizes have come down, not gone up. I know that Opposition Members do not like the answer, but that is the answer.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Tomorrow, the Deputy Prime Minister will be visiting my constituency in east London—and he will be exceptionally welcome—to officiate at the groundbreaking ceremony marking the start of the building of Excel, which, when completed, will be the largest exhibition and conference centre in the United Kingdom. Despite such exciting initiatives, 13 of the 20 most deprived wards in the UK are in Greater London, where we have more unemployment than Scotland and Northern Ireland combined. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to support the regeneration of the Thames gateway? Does he agree that the areas of London for which objective 2 status is sought have an exceptionally strong case?

The Prime Minister: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's point. I know that, along with his colleagues, he will be meeting Ministers to argue their points on objective 2 status. I gather that Excel, once completed, is expected to create about 14,000 jobs. It is the latest of a series of public-private projects for regeneration of the docklands and elsewhere, and is exactly the right type of co-operation between the private and public sector for the future.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Prime Minister tell the House this afternoon whether the devious drift to regional government in the United Kingdom, the likely tax harmonisation with the European Union, with all the additional costs for most businesses and individuals in this country, and the sale of our gold reserves—or much of our gold reserves—for a devalued euro are his way of submerging the United Kingdom into a Europe of the regions, thus making the holding of a referendum totally irrelevant?

The Prime Minister: No is the answer to all those points. If I may deal with one—

Mr. Winterton: Deal with all of them.

The Prime Minister: If I may begin by dealing with one of them, on the gold reserves, throughout the world countries have been selling gold in order to diversify their reserves. It has happened—[Interruption.] I was not aware that Argentina or Switzerland were about to join the euro. Lots of different countries have been doing it. It was always rubbish that this was anything to do with the euro; it is nothing to do with it.
As for regional government, we have said that we shall work with the regions. If they want greater power, we are prepared to give it.
As for the development agencies that are being set up in the regions, I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman's region, but I shall speak for mine, the north-east, where everyone welcomes the idea. It is a good idea to co-ordinate investment to get new investment into the region. I appreciate that the Conservatives are opposed to everything to do with greater power to and

decentralisation of the regions, just as they are opposed to Europe, but they should not wish all their problems on the rest of us.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: Experience as a magistrate and from the work that I have done in my constituency has made me well aware of the extent of the problem of drug abuse. Sadly, many children in secondary schools today are experimenting with drugs such as heroin. For some people, financing their habit is not a problem. For others, it is, and they resort to criminal activity, ranging from petty theft to more serious offences, such as burglary, fraud and deception.
I am aware of many of the voluntary projects, such as The Zone drop-in project in Halesowen, which are offering advice to young people and their families, and authorities such as Sandwell health authority, which are setting targets to reduce the amount of drug abuse. Therefore, I welcome the Government's proposals on drug abuse.
Can my right hon. Friend assure me, however, that, in addition to those targets, he will ensure that there is an increase in the availability of treatment and rehabilitation centres? Punishment alone is not a sufficient deterrent.

The Prime Minister: Yes. We are increasing the resources that are going to treatment and rehabilitation. We have introduced penalties as well, such as the drug treatment and testing order, to put criminals with drug problems into treatment. For the first time, assets seized from drug traffickers convicted in this country will be channelled back into action against drugs.
The Government have launched a major programme and attached to it are specific targets to cut drug abuse. For the first time, we are co-ordinating actively across Government Departments the fight against drugs and drug abuse.

Mr. John Butterfill: The Prime Minister knows that I am not one of those who oppose our membership of the European Union, and no one who has listened to him today can have any doubt of his commitment to the well-being of the European Union, but in relation to withholding tax, surely he knows that it would not be uniquely damaging to the United Kingdom, but would be extremely damaging to the European Union as a whole. Therefore, does he not have a duty to do everything in his power to prevent it from occurring?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman said that he was not opposed to the European Union, and I agree with him in everything else that he said. That is precisely why the sensible response is for us to say to the rest of Europe, "Yes, you have a problem with tax evasion in certain countries"—and it does. Germany has a serious problem with companies simply crossing borders as a means of tax evasion. We are saying, "Look, we can deal with that problem in a different way." The hon. Gentleman is right that the withholding tax, if it were imposed throughout Europe by the centre, would damage not just the UK, but other countries. It is for that reason that we are engaging constructively, and doing our very best to ensure that the damage is not done, but that, instead, we offer those countries a better, more sensible way of dealing with their problems.

Mr. Paul Marsden: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware


that cancer is the No. 1 killer disease in England and Wales. Will he therefore join me in congratulating the Royal Shrewsbury hospital and local Shropshire charities on the wonderful care that they give cancer patients and their families? Can he update the House on the outcome of the meeting that he held last week with top cancer specialists, which gave a great boost to all those who are involved in the crusade against cancer?

The Prime Minister: One in four people will die of cancer. That is why the Government are committed to making our cancer services the best in the world. We have invested an extra £60 million directly in services for the three most common cancers, and are committing another £150 million to get state-of-the-art equipment in our hospitals, increasing the number of cancer specialists and providing up to 15,000 extra nurses, as well as increasing spending on cancer drugs. That is all part of the largest single increase in investment in the health service—the £21 billion—that any Government have ever made. Conservative Members may not like that, but it is the right thing to do, the country likes it, and it stands in contrast to the undermining of the health service by the Conservative party.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Scottish Enterprise Act 1999
Rating (Valuation) Act 1999
Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act 1999

Kosovo

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Two months into NATO's campaign, I think that it is appropriate that I should report to the House, before it rises for the recess, on the Kosovo crisis.
Before I do so, I place on record the huge debt that we all owe the men and women of all three services and their civilian support, for their bravery, commitment and sheer hard work in support of NATO's efforts to help the refugees from Kosovo and to end the horror being inflicted by the Belgrade regime in Kosovo.
The men and women of our armed forces have seen with their own eyes the results of the horrific ethnic cleansing carried out by Milosevic's troops, the special police and the paramilitaries—the torture, the systematic rape, the murder and the eviction of more than 1 million people. They know that they are engaged in the pursuit of a just cause—the return of the evicted people of Kosovo to their homes in safety and security.
At the Washington summit at the end of April, NATO's political leaders took two important decisions on the future direction of the alliance's military strategy in Kosovo. First, they agreed to step up and intensify the air campaign. The results of that decision are daily becoming more evident, as NATO planes steadily weaken and progressively destroy the capability of Milosevic's forces and increase the pressure on him to accept a peace settlement based on NATO's conditions.
NATO's air campaign is working. During last week's debate, I gave some statistics about the amount of damage that we have already done to Yugoslav forces in Kosovo. Each day, we add more to the tally. Yesterday alone, NATO aircraft destroyed at least 15 artillery pieces, five tanks, a surface-to-air missile launcher and several artillery and mortar positions. On 22 May, the tally included at least 12 tanks and 11 armoured vehicles.
The overall losses inflicted on the Yugoslav forces are now estimated to include more than 110 combat aircraft. NATO estimates that that includes about 70 per cent. of the Mig-29s and about one quarter of the Mig-21s. These are the most combat-effective of the Yugoslav aircraft, and they represent a significant loss.
We have struck about 600 individual pieces of military equipment, more than half of them tanks, artillery and armoured personnel carriers. That constitutes about one third of the Serb heavy forces in Kosovo. We have destroyed 75 per cent. of Serbia's fixed surface-to-air missile sites and more than 12 per cent. of the mobile systems. We have struck more than a dozen command posts.
Those are the effects of the air campaign on the forces on the ground, which present the most challenging targets. The strategic targets include most of the primary road and rail bridges over which supplies must pass. We have attacked more than a third of all the fixed telecommunications sites, and we have repeatedly attacked airfields and hangars, and numerous ammunition and fuel storage sites and barracks.
All that represents a very effective air campaign, which is achieving the military objectives that we set at the outset of the campaign. The demonstrations, desertions and dissent that we have witnessed in recent days are

evidence that ordinary Serbs are now questioning the policies of Milosevic and the damaging and unwinnable conflict with NATO into which he has led them.
The second Washington summit decision was to update NATO's plans for the deployment of ground forces. Air and ground options are sometimes described as though they are separate and different. That has never been the case. NATO has always planned for a ground force to ensure the safe return home of the refugees, once the air campaign has achieved its objective. We have already assembled a Kosovo Force of about 14,000 in Macedonia, including substantial contributions from France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.
However, the massive destruction wrought by Milosevic's forces in Kosovo means that the originally planned total of 28,000 will no longer be adequate. On top of the task of creating a secure environment for the returning refugees, it is now necessary to plan on a much increased scale to assist with the re-establishment of the civil infrastructure, the provision of humanitarian aid and the clearance of land mines laid by Milosevic's forces. We are working with our partners to ensure that civil structures are in place to take on those tasks, but, inevitably, much of the early burden will fall to military forces.
The North Atlantic Council yesterday took note of a revised plan drawn up by NATO's military authorities, which, subject to more detailed planning, identifies a requirement for a force of about 45,000 to deal with the full range of tasks now envisaged. That figure excludes any additional forces that may be needed to provide essential national logistic support, which may raise the overall number to nearer 55,000 to 60,000. Further work to develop this military planning is going ahead within NATO.
The Kosovo Force plans will still need to be adapted as the situation on the ground changes and to take account of wider developments in the context of a political settlement. Discussions are taking place about the contributions that allies can make to such a force.
The British Government have made it clear that, as in Bosnia, we are keen to work with other nations that are prepared to provide military forces for KFOR. Given the need for NATO to be ready to react quickly to deploy into Kosovo in support of a peace settlement, the UK is today taking a number of steps on a national basis to ensure that we can move as soon as it is possible to get the refugees back home.
We have decided that the United Kingdom will make a substantial contribution to the planned force. That is consistent with the role that we have taken so far in the campaign and with our determination to see it brought to a quick and successful conclusion. We are determined that as many refugees as possible can return home before the winter closes in.
Because of the capability and deployability of our forces, the United Kingdom is well placed to contribute to that operation. Moreover, as the Framework Nation for the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps—the ARRC—our initial contribution will inevitably be high. However, we envisage that the UK contribution to the force will reduce markedly after an initial deployment period of six months.
I am now reducing the notice to move of the three infantry battalion groups which, as previously announced, are undergoing training for possible operations in Kosovo.



The units concerned are the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Rangers; the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment; and the 1st Battalion, the Royal Gurkha Rifles.
In addition, we are reducing the notice of 3 Commando brigade and the amphibious ready group, of a number of combat support groups, of two brigade headquarters, of elements of a divisional headquarters and of a number of RAF support helicopters and support units. I am placing in the Library of the House a full list of the units involved.
Precisely how many of those earmarked forces will be needed by NATO will depend on a number of factors—most important, what forces other allies are able to provide in the time required. Given the importance that NATO attaches to the early identification, training, commitment and deployment of additional forces, we judge it prudent to take those steps now to keep options open and to be ready to respond once firm requests are received from NATO. The geographical distance of the United Kingdom from the theatre of operations means that deployment times are inevitably longer for us than for most other allies.
In all, we are reducing the notice to move of more than 12,000 personnel, in addition to the 5,400 already deployed in Macedonia as part of the Kosovo implementation force and the 1,600 others committed to Kosovo operations. We are also taking steps to provide the equipment and material needed to support a force of that size and are making preparations to deploy the heavy equipment of the three infantry battalion groups and some combat support to the region next month.
Those are serious steps, and they will place great demands on all three services and on individual service men and their families, but they measure up to the seriousness of the situation confronting us in Kosovo. Let us remember that 1.5 million people—more than three quarters of the population of Kosovo—have been driven from their homes in terror. Our objective is to allow them to return home and rebuild their shattered lives in secure and civilised conditions and, in doing so, to show that the cruelty and brutality that we have seen in Kosovo over the past year will simply not be tolerated.
That is a major and a momentous undertaking which, in the coming months and years, will require a major investment of diplomatic, financial, humanitarian and military effort. The measures that I have announced today are a further demonstration of the Government's determination to play a full part in that historic effort.

Mr. John Maples: I fully associate the Opposition with the support expressed by the Secretary of State for the work that our armed services are doing in the Balkans.
Last week in the Kosovo debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I drew attention to what we saw as confusion at the heart of Government policy. Despite all the Foreign Secretary's travels and all the spinning during the past week, that confusion remains. Today's statement, although it announces the commitment of considerably more British troops to possible deployment in Macedonia, does nothing to clarify that confusion.
In the light of what he has said, can the Secretary of State confirm that the three battalion groups whose notice to move he has reduced are the same 2,000 soldiers who,

he announced some weeks ago, were being assigned to KFOR in Macedonia? When does he expect them to be deployed? Is it true that the only way in which the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment has been able to make up its numbers is by borrowing more than 150 people from the 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment?
Last week, the Foreign Secretary went to Washington to remove the apparent split between the United Kingdom and the United States over ground troops. We were treated to a media double act by the Foreign Secretary and Mrs. Albright. We were told that they were at one, but, no sooner had the Foreign Secretary left, suggesting a new US willingness to use ground troops, than Mrs. Albright was denying any possibility of NATO entering Kosovo in anything other than a permissive environment.
All that has been agreed is a more realistically sized peacekeeping force at 48,000, although the Secretary of State has told us that that figure might rise to 60,000. The Government have been presenting that in the media as the basis of a possible invasion force, but, at yesterday's NATO force planning meeting, Ken Bacon, the Pentagon spokesman said:
the force will be structured to provide plenty of non-military public security function to ensure the safe return of the refugees.
Today, he said:
this is not a shadow invasion force.
Is it the basis of a possible invasion force or not?
The composition of the extra 20,000 troops apparently will take another full week to decide. Whatever happened to rapid reaction? It is now nine weeks since the bombing started. Only 14,000 of the 28,000 troops are actually in place in Macedonia. When does the Secretary of State expect the full 48,000—or now perhaps 60,000—to be available in theatre? Are the NATO forces in Albania included in the 48,000 total? How many of the 48,000 troops does he expect to be equipped and configured for war fighting, as opposed to peacekeeping?
The Government clearly still believe that we can achieve our aims only by the more aggressive use of ground troops, but none of our allies appears to share that view. The Foreign Secretary continues to talk of a "semi-permissive environment", to blur that division. However, I am advised that, in reality, there is no such thing. We either drive down the road into Kosovo as a peacekeeping force, or we enter configured for war fighting and prepared to meet resistance.
Javier Solana says that the alliance plans to bring the war to a close and return the refugees before the winter. We believe that that timetable is crucial. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister agreed that the window of opportunity was very small, and that decisions would have to be made very soon. It seems to us that those decisions have not been made. The Government's preferred option of an early use of ground troops has probably been lost already through indecision over an issue that should have been resolved before we started.
Do we not appear now to be wholly reliant on the success of the bombing campaign? Of course, we must all hope that it will work, but I do not think that a single independent military expert believes that it will. Meanwhile, the flood of refugees continues, with all their evidence of Milosevic's revolting crimes. We want all those refugees to return to their homes. We want the Government to succeed in achieving that but, as I said last


week, we cannot go on as we have for the past eight weeks. The Government must develop a credible strategy. I see no evidence that that is happening. I only hope that there is still time for them to do so.

Mr. Robertson: I take that as support.

Mr. Maples: It was.

Mr. Robertson: I suppose that that qualified support is better than no support, which is what has been offered by some other hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench.
I shall answer the questions that have been raised soberly, because there should be maximum unity in the House at this time. Frankly, there are many questions to which enormously detailed answers would be of more advantage to the opponents of the alliance than to the House. However, my military commanders and I have given the maximum information that we believe is reasonable and possible. We have been attacked in many quarters for giving too much information—an accusation that I take on the chin.
The hon. Gentleman first asked whether the three battalion groups that I have talked about today were the same 2,000 troops that we sent to Kosovo as part of the second battle group. No, they are not, and that should have been reasonably obvious. We announced that those three battalion groups had been put into training, with the potential of being available if NATO were to decide that a bigger force was needed.
The hon. Gentleman asked when those troops will be deployed. That is a matter for NATO, not for individual countries. I wish that the Opposition, when they respond, both in the House and outside it, to statements such as today's, would remember that the operation is being conducted by NATO. There are 19 countries in NATO. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to attack this Government in this House, but this is an alliance effort, and all the stronger for being so.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I was aware that, if required, I Para would be able to deploy only if it borrowed from 3 Para. Of course I am aware of that. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, in practically every operational context, now and during the previous Government's period in office, battalions deployed for operations in theatre are all backfilled.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman made too much fun of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the American Secretary of State, who last weekend showed the alliance solidarity that binds us together. On the very day that my right hon. Friend left Washington, the President of the United States wrote an article in The New York Times that made it clear that other military options existed and that no military option had been taken off the table. The hon. Gentleman may care to pick apart various phrases, but that is the reality of the alliance that we have today.
The shadow Defence Secretary claims that we suggested in the media that this is an invasion force, whereas we have said exactly the opposite. This is not an invasion force: it is a strengthened peace implementation force. That is a fact, and that is the reality of what we are doing. He asked when the troops would arrive in theatre.

I have no intention of answering that question today, and anyway it depends on what the NATO military authorities ask us to provide from the earmarked troops.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the total numbers include troops in Albania. Although the commander of the Albania force, General Reith, who is acting with enormous distinction and international praise, happens to be British, he is a NATO commander. He has some British support elements, but the vast majority of the troops in Albania, who are, after all, in the theatre, come from France, Italy and the United States.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about windows of opportunity. I should like to say to him and to anyone else who is listening, including people in Serbia, that there are plenty of windows of opportunity for us to act. We shall keep acting day on day until NATO's reasonable conditions have been satisfied.
The shadow Defence Secretary accused us of indecision, but I have come to the House of Commons today to show that NATO and this country's response can be decisive. This is a momentous day. We are strengthening the peace implementation force available to NATO to deploy when it is the right time for the refugees to go home. I should have thought that that measure deserved a more gracious welcome from Her Majesty's Opposition than it was given.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Many people will be heartened to hear my right hon. Friend's statement about the necessary support to help refugees to go back to their homes in Kosovo. Will he outline the measures that will be taken to clean up and rebuild the civilian infrastructure, which will be necessary for the refugees to live a normal life once they get back home?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. The damage that has been done by Milosevic's marauding troops is considerable. As the G8 declaration clearly lays out, the social reconstruction of Kosovo will be a big task for all of us. That is one of the reasons why NATO felt that it was right and proper to increase the size of the forces required. Although civilian authorities will have to be put in place, the early burden will inevitably fall on the military. We shall have to be ambitious in what we do inside Kosovo if those traumatised people are to have a semblance of normality.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Following the Prime Minister's answer to the question put earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), does the Secretary of State agree that it is not simply by numbers but by the composition of its forces that NATO will make clear to the Milosevic regime its determination that the refugees should be able to return and live in peace? Does he agree that the forces must be capable of sustained, high-intensity warfare and not only reconstruction, if NATO has to impose its will in a hostile environment to enable the return of the refugees before the onset of winter?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that NATO's overall forces must be structured so as to be able to impose, and not just implement, peace, and must contain a preponderance of teeth arms? He told the House that he envisaged that the United Kingdom's contribution to the force would reduce markedly after an initial


deployment period of six months. On what factors does he base that assessment, and from what date will that period run?

Mr. Robertson: The composition of whatever force is put in place will, of course, determine what that force can do. That is why we are being judicious in the troops that we send. Some of the troops who have been in the region since the beginning of the year are involved in high-intensity warfare, but such is the flexibility of our forces that, when the hundreds of thousands of human beings who have been evicted from their homes and from their homeland came across the border into Macedonia, those forces rose to the occasion and built the refugee camps. It is possible for troops trained for high-intensity warfare to move to a humanitarian role, and such skills will be necessary when we go into Kosovo to return people to their homes.
The picture that I have painted, and what I have said about the troops who have been earmarked, will have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman an idea of the problems that we expect our troops to face in Kosovo. Just one factor is the number of land mines that will have been sown by Milosevic, irresponsibly and illegally, during his occupation. They will pose a substantial risk to all incoming forces. The NATO structures will reflect the fact that, even in the most permissive circumstances, the environment will still be dangerous, and the fact that a wide range of capabilities will be required.
The deployment of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps in NATO doctrine is predicated on a deployment of six months, so that the corps can be available for other duties. The decision on when the clock starts to tick will be a matter for NATO, but the choice of a date for the corps to perform the task for which it was sent—returning the refugees—will be perfectly understandable.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Many people will welcome today's announcement, especially given the common view that it was a silly error to suggest at the start of the bombings that land forces would not be sent in. That was indeed a major error, and it probably encouraged Milosevic.
Nevertheless, there are real fears that the refugees will not return to Kosovo this year, and that many will spend their time in Macedonia, Albania and elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that those who are exposed to the terrible winter conditions of the area will be adequately housed and fed, and will not be left in tented encampments?

Mr. Robertson: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's welcome, I disagree with him about whether it was right or wrong to rule out a wholesale land invasion in the face of organised resistance in Kosovo at the outset. NATO—all 19 of the allies—made a careful and considered decision at the time about what was the best military option to deal with the circumstances that existed at the time. It is easy for some, with hindsight, to criticise the decisions that were made then, but I think that history will show that the right decisions were made.
We will return as many refugees as is humanly possible to Kosovo and their own homes, in safe and secure circumstances. The earlier that that can be done, the better

it will be; and the sooner Milosevic recognises that he cannot defeat NATO and should settle on the basis of NATO's conditions, the sooner things will be settled for those human beings.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome the statement, but does it not imply to some extent that we have—for the time being, at any rate—ruled out importing into the area troops capable of mounting an invasion? This is basically a force to implement peace when it has been established; it is nothing more or less than that.
Can the Secretary of State tell us who, apart from this country, is contributing to the force? Are the Americans or the Visegrad countries involved? To what extent is there an agreement in deed as well as in thought?

Mr. Robertson: This is a peace implementation force, but we—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the President of the United States and NATO—have made it clear that all other options are on the table, and will be carefully considered. As for who will supplement and strengthen the implementation force, I believe that all the allies in NATO will be engaged. They are substantially involved in the present KFOR. There are clear indications that, at the force generation conference that will probably take place next week, most of the other countries in NATO will be substantially contributing, along with us.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Although homelessness is a feature of all wars, does the Secretary of State agree that a unique feature of the war in Kosovo is that the vast majority of Kosovan people are now homeless—they either have been excluded from their country, or are homeless in the mountains? Therefore, he has the support of many of us in saying that we will need ground troops if the people are to return home in great numbers.
Will my right hon. Friend disregard the mocking of the British-American alliance by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which must replay very well in the Belgrade media? Will he instead listen to the voice of decent British public opinion, which cannot stomach genocide in Europe and will support all that the Government do to combat it?

Mr. Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the decent majority in this country—indeed, the overwhelming majority of public opinion—support what the Government are doing. They support our humanitarian objectives—we need constantly to emphasise that. However, those are more than humanitarian. If Milosevic were to get away with the genocide and with ethnic cleansing on such a grand scale, does anyone imagine that he would stop at Kosovo? Vojvodina would be the next place, and it would be hoovered out of ethnic Hungarians. What would happen to Montenegro? What would he do about Macedonia, next door?
There are good strategic reasons why we have to draw a line before Milosevic's ambitions. Those go side by side with the common humanity that we engage when we say that ethnic cleansing is absolutely unacceptable.
Ground troops have always been part of NATO's strategy. Air attacks and the ground troops that would escort the refugees back to their homes have been part and parcel of the twin-track policy that we have had from the beginning.

Sir Peter Emery: After that last remark from the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), will the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Opposition are 100 per cent. behind our troops in the field and all the tasks that they have to achieve? Whatever questions may be asked of him, the support for what we have to do is complete and absolute, and he must know that.
Perhaps as an illustration of keeping up the morale of the troops in the Balkans, will the right hon. Gentleman show his support by doing everything possible to ensure that the anonymity of the military men who are called to give evidence to the new Bloody Sunday inquiry that has been instituted shall be maintained, and shall not be revealed to the IRA?

Mr. Robertson: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the unwavering support that he has given to what the Government are doing in their present endeavour—part and parcel of a NATO alliance that is standing firm in the face of an enormous evil, the like of which we have not seen.

Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the Secretary of State should not respond further. I was reading material relating to that matter at the time. It is sub judice.

Mr. Robertson: I was actually paying a compliment to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). I had not got to the element that involves sub judice. I am grateful for your prior warning, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman can pay all the compliments that he likes to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), provided that he does not get on to the sub judice part of the question. I may have something to say about that later.

Mr. Robertson: I knew that I would be taking great risks if I got anywhere near the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I did not realise that I was treading in dangerous territory by daring to praise an Opposition Member, but he has always been robust in his support. I know that, contrary sometimes to the impressions that are given in the heat of the moment, the whole House supports those of our fighting forces who are out there risking life and limb for what they and we know to be a major national interest.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have never had any problems in supporting attacks on military targets in Yugoslavia, and the Secretary of State has just spelt out the success of that type of bombing. What I am concerned about is the impact of bombing on civilians, as it seems to have gone way beyond what one might attribute to collateral or accidental damage. What criteria are used in determining civilian targets? Obviously schools, hospitals and housing are being hit only by accident; but there seems to have been an awful lot of bombing of bridges, factories, bus stations and railway stations, going beyond the principle of proportionality.

Many of us would feel much easier if bombing were restricted entirely to military targets, with only occasional non-military damage.

Mr. Robertson: Life would be much easier for all of us if, in a country such as Yugoslavia, we could easily draw a line between that which is military and that which is military-commercial. Milosevic set out to create a military machine in which there was an intimacy between his military and every other aspect of society. Nevertheless, the rule of proportionality is a very severe guide to us, as is appropriateness. Therefore, all the targets being hit are related—appropriately and proportionately—to degrading and weakening the military machine that has caused the genocidal violence in Kosovo.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I also welcome the Secretary of State's presence in the House and his statement today. I can also assure him that, having seen the refugees in Albania and Macedonia, I wholeheartedly support the Government in their determination to get them back to Kosovo. I was tempted to ask why, if the air campaign is working so well, the volume of refugees being deported by Milosevic is increasing, rather than decreasing, but, my question is this: Before the bombing campaign began, did the Secretary of State receive advice from the Ministry of Defence that the bombing campaign on its own would not achieve the aims that he set out?

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear his support. I do not believe that anyone who—like him and me—has met the refugees could reach any conclusion other than that we had to act, and to do so very robustly indeed. He also asked a question that the Government are occasionally asked, on the military advice that we have received. The buck stops here: I am at the Dispatch Box, in the House of Commons, as the Secretary of State for Defence. There is in the United Kingdom civilian control of the military. I cannot hide behind the decisions taken by the military or the advice that I am given, because I am answerable to the House for the decisions that I take.
The decision to go ahead with the strategy that was adopted was taken not by the United Kingdom Government or by the United Kingdom military, but by 19 Heads of Government and 19 military commanders, with 19 democratic Parliaments behind them. I think that the hon. Gentleman can take it that the military advice that we received was the advice that we executed.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I join with every hon. Member in condemning ethnic cleansing, be it in Kosovo or the Krajina. However, does the Secretary of State accept that there are other victims of violence in this war? Is he aware that 30 per cent. of the 1,200 civilians killed in Yugoslavia by NATO bombs were children, and that 40 per cent. of the 5,000 injured were children? What would he say to the children of Nis who, before the war, attended the Playhouse—the English-teaching primary school? While I was on a brief visit to the school between bombing raids, those five and six-year-olds took down the Union flag—I have it here—from their school, and drew on it pictures of their experience of being bombed by NATO. Does he agree that they are just as much victims


as the children in the camps? Is it not time to start concentrating on a political settlement, rather than talking up a ground war?

Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend holds her views with great sincerity and great passion, but she really has to see in her own mind who started this whole thing. Who was it who started to bombard villages in Kosovo? Who was it who drove ordinary people—civilians—from their homes and their villages into the hills and across the borders? Who has been involved in the murders and the rapes that have been a part of that systematic picture? We know who it was not only from the words of the victims themselves, but because we know what Milosevic's troops have done in other theatres of war.
I do not like any civilian casualties. I am sure that the statistics were given to my hon. Friend in good faith, but I do not believe that 30 per cent. of the civilian casualties in Yugoslavia have been children. I regret every civilian casualty. Every one was a mistake. None of them was targeted. Thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians—children, old people, men and women—have been brutalised directly and deliberately by Milosevic's troops and paramilitary thugs in Kosovo. When that stops and the refugees get back, we shall not have to carry out the bombing that has been necessary. We did not want to do it, but we had to.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Government can have my full support for the aims of the military action, but I am worried that they are willing the end but not the means. It has always seemed clear to an enormous number of us that bombing alone is very unlikely to achieve the Government's objectives. Might the increased forces that the Government are putting in place be used in a non-permissive environment, as defined by the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Robertson: The troops announced by NATO are not an invasion force. That is clear from the numbers. They are a peace implementation force to escort the refugees back to their homes. We willed the end—an end to the violence and a peaceful and secure return home for those who have been driven from their homes. All the military commanders believed that that was the right way to proceed. That was endorsed by the politicians, who make the ultimate decisions. We are confident that, after eight weeks, the air attacks have caused huge damage to the Serb military. Dissent is increasing in Serbia. Many brave people of real substance are speaking out and deserve the support of all decent people in Yugoslavia. People are beginning to realise what has been done in their name in Kosovo. That is a major pressure towards the settlement for which we all hope.

Mr. David Winnick: Should not the critics in the House and outside accept that the conflict can quickly come to an end once Belgrade signals its intention to accept an international military force that would allow all the refugees to return in safety and protect all the other civilians in Kosovo, including the Serb minority? Perhaps the critics could try to persuade Belgrade of that. Two months after the start of NATO's military intervention, the majority support in the country

for what we are doing has been maintained because the people know, as we do, that to stand aside while such terrible crimes and atrocities were being committed in Kosovo would have brought lasting shame to this country and to our European allies.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks with authority and consistency. We are taking action only because of the genocidal violence practised by Milosevic and the Belgrade regime. When that ends and the conditions are accepted, the bombing can and will stop. The conditions are not onerous. They are simply that there should be an end to the violence, the withdrawal of the Serb troops and the acceptance of a political process and an international security force to allow the refugees to come home. Those were all component parts of United Nations Security Council resolution 1199, passed last September. That list of demands is endorsed by the vast majority of the international community. The demands make sense, they are humane and they would impose no more on Milosevic than his human obligation.

Sir Archie Hamilton: Why do the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary continue to talk about allowing Kosovans to go back to their homes when they know quite well that many of them have no homes to go to for the simple reason that they have been burnt or razed to the ground by the Serbs? Why should the Kosovans be so much keener on returning to Kosovo than the Bosnians were to return to Bosnia, where some 1 million people were displaced and only 78,000 have gone back? Would the Secretary of State not do better to assume that hundreds of thousands of refugees will be left in refugee camps this winter, and start providing the shelter that they will need to withstand the rigours of the Balkan winter, instead of adding to their agony by allowing hundreds of thousands to freeze to death?

Mr. Robertson: We have to make arrangements for refugees who may well have to spend the winter in the cold of the Balkans. That is sensible contingency planning and it has already started. However, the clear intention is to get refugees back to their homes and villages—despite the damage that has been done and the fact that some of their houses and villages no longer exist—because that is what they want. They say that they will rebuild their homes and keep their communities together and that they have no intention of leaving the land of their forefathers. We have no right to make assumptions about what should happen to them. Not all the analogies with Bosnia are correct; some are, especially in respect of the violence that Milosevic was willing to perpetrate there, which gives us an indication of what he did to human beings in Kosovo. However, 90 per cent. of the population of Kosovo were Albanian by extraction. They know how to go back and where to go back to, and their houses have not been occupied. It will be a difficult and painstaking process, but it will happen.

Ms Dari Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House today and warmly welcome the peace implementation plan. Will he take as an example the tremendous work of our Territorials and Reservists in Bosnia and consider the extensive value and use they could be to a reconstruction


plan in Kosovo? Will he give them adequate warning so that they can put their lives in order before their call-up papers arrive?

Mr. Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the consistency of her message. We certainly have not forgotten our Reserve forces who continue to play a distinguished role in Bosnia. Many of them will be valuable and important in the potential implementation force that is being set up and strengthened for Kosovo. They will undoubtedly have a role there too.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it intentional or unintentional that the Secretary of State always leaves the strategy of NATO—if it has one—very unclear? After 60 days and nights of bombing, the tragic truth is that not a single Kosovan Albanian has been saved. If the military capacity of Serbia has been so much reduced, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested in his opening remarks, it is difficult to believe that, in a permissive situation, it would be necessary to increase the number of troops from 28,000 to 60,000.
On the other hand, if, as I strongly suspect, we shall ultimately go into an opposed invasion, 60,000 troops will be wholly inadequate. On 23 March, the Prime Minister admitted in the House that if we had to take on the Serbian Army we would require at least 200,000 troops. So we are getting the worst of both worlds. As I said to the Prime Minister on 23 March, it is time for the Government to come clean with the British people and tell us what they really intend to do.

Mr. Robertson: When I hear such questions, I wonder whether some people are looking forward to failure. The strategy has been clear from the start. The intention is to stop the violence in Kosovo and to get the refugees back in safety and security to the land of their ancestors. That is the strategy to which the 19 NATO countries have subscribed. It has been clear, open and transparent—perhaps too transparent—from the word go. That is exactly our intention.
I have made it clear, in this House and outside, that this is not an invasion force but a peace implementation force, strengthened for the reasons that I have given. In the new circumstances following the eight weeks of the air campaign and the carnage wrought by Milosevic in Kosovo, it is the belief of the military authorities that we need more people to be ready to escort the refugees back.
The hon. Gentleman says that not a single Kosovar has been saved. Perhaps he should take the opportunity to go to some of the places in this country where there are Kosovar refugees—if he cannot make the journey to Macedonia or to Albania—and ask them how many lives have been saved and how many people were not put to the bayonet because of NATO forces. Perhaps he should hear the acclaim with which NATO has been greeted as the only saviours of the Kosovar people. We will get those evicted people back to their homes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although it has taken place in a sparse House, in 37 years I have not heard a more momentous or far-reaching statement from a Minister. It must be about a land war of uncertain outcome in the Balkans on which we are embarking.
What is the port situation? Are we going to be guaranteed the use of the port of the Piraeus, because the mayor of Athens has said that not a finger would be lifted by the dockers? Are we going to have the facility at Salonika? If not, how is such a force to be supported?
On the question of cluster bombs, the Secretary of State justifiably can claim considerable credit for his work on land mines. Cluster bombs are not so very different from land mines. What is the justification for their use? The Secretary of State talked about the refugees returning to Kosovo. Could I ask a factual question? In the knocking-out of tanks, what has been the assessment of the use of depleted uranium?
The Secretary of State has referred to Hungarian ethnic minorities in Vojvodina. Is there a suggestion that they are subject to the possibility of ethnic cleansing? If so, what can we do about it, other than occupy Serbia? Is there on the agenda an option for the occupation of Serbia?
Finally—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand that others are seeking to ask questions. I realise the seriousness with which we all take this matter, but he must bring his questioning to a conclusion.

Mr. Dalyell: All right, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Robertson: I do not think that I shall persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has made up his mind that we should not be involved in this military action at all. If he is willing to stand back while people are massacred, that is a matter for him and his conscience.
The port situation and where any potentially enhanced force will be based are matters for the NATO authorities and the countries involved. I would like to pay tribute to the Government of Greece, who have allowed the use of the port of Thessaloniki for the troops that are at present in Macedonia. I pay tribute also to the Governments of Macedonia—a tiny and fragile country, which has hosted so many of our troops because it believes in the interests that we are promoting—and Albania, which has absorbed 400,000 refugees: that is equivalent of the whole population of the island of Ireland being absorbed into mainland Britain. Those are extraordinary achievements by those countries, which deserve our thanks and congratulations.
Our forces will be supported wherever they are. They have been up to now, and they will be in the future. My hon. Friend asked about cluster bombs. They have existed for some time, and they are the means that we have against the forces that are at present deployed inside Kosovo, who are deliberately targeting civilians and causing mayhem. Not only are people raped and tortured, and men beaten, as we saw so vividly on television at the weekend, but who knows what other horrors are going on.
Depleted uranium is not used in any of the munitions currently being used in Kosovo or in the Yugoslav theatre.
My hon. Friend asked about the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina. If he were listened to for military advice, all the ethnic Albanians would be swept out of Kosovo, and Milosevic would not stop there: the minority in Vojvodina


would certainly be expelled and the last flickering elements of democracy in Montenegro snuffed out, after which Milosevic would be on the trail for other victims.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Secretary of State said that he had received military advice to the effect that it is now necessary to have more military forces to escort the refugees back into Kosovo. Does he accept that that implies that we are likely to meet greater resistance than was previously anticipated? Does it not follow that what he is doing in reality is to guard, and possibly provide, against the opposition of the Serbs? In short, we are talking about an invasion against resistance.
If that is right, or even likely to be right, should not the Secretary of State ask, on a substantive motion, for the authority of the House to underpin such an operation?

Mr. Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the previous Government, and was specifically in charge of the Balkans. I was a shadow foreign affairs spokesman for about 11 years, and I do not remember substantive motions being tabled about the military action that NATO, rightly and properly, took in Bosnia, through IFOR, to ensure that the Serb violence was ended there.
We will leave that to one side, because according to the Leader of the Opposition we are not allowed to talk about history: apparently, the previous Government did not exist. The fact is, as I have said, that this is not an invasion force but a strengthened implementation force, designed by the NATO military authorities and endorsed by the North Atlantic Council for the good, sensible and practical reasons that they believed made it absolutely necessary to have a force in place that is relevant to the circumstances that our troops will face when they take the refugees back into Kosovo.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the judicious leadership that the Government have shown in NATO? Will he ensure that ground troops are deployed as quickly as is practical and prudent, to secure the safe return of hundreds of thousands of Kosovar refugees?

Mr. Robertson: I am very pleased to accept my hon. Friend's congratulations, not only because there is no politician who does not like to be flattered but because he has been to the refugee camps in the region, met the people there and listened to the tales of horror, but also the tales of hope about what NATO has done and can do in the future. Their only hope is that NATO will—as it will—prevail.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In the light of the Secretary of State's earlier answer, in which he referred to the need to backfill units deployed into action, and his answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on the use of Territorials and Reservists in Bosnia, can he confirm that, throughout the country, units that are being reduced to a small fraction of their present size are receiving requests to send volunteers to the Balkans, including for example the Green Jackets Support

Weapons Unit in Oxfordshire and 289 Commando Battery in the east end of London? Is he planning a compulsory call-out of Territorials?

Mr. Robertson: The purpose of restructuring and modernising the Territorial Army was to make it more usable, more deployable, and therefore much more useful in the sort of situation in which we find ourselves in Kosovo today. I hear no suggestions that we should reverse the reforms that we have put in place. On the contrary, I have heard from various parts of the country the clear message that what we set out to do, and what we are delivering in terms of strengthening the Territorial Army, is precisely what the Territorial Army will be good at in the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that message back to the country.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Defence Secretary back to the reply that he gave a few moments ago in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in which my right hon. Friend asserted that depleted uranium shells are not being used by British forces? Will he confirm that NATO forces are using them and that they have a long-term carcinogenic effect both on the victims at whom they are directed and on society as a whole? Will the Defence Secretary confirm also that it is part of NATO's strategy to bomb oil refineries, chemical factories and industrial plants, in the full knowledge that the resulting danger of pollution is enormous and horrendous and that that pollution will not stop at national boundaries but affect and destroy natural life and the health of people throughout the region? Will the Defence Secretary confirm that cluster bombs—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow inquired—are, in effect, mines dropped from the sky and that they will be a curse on the people of that region for many decades to come?

Mr. Robertson: It will be nice—and, gosh, will I welcome it!—when my hon. Friend comes to the Chamber and denounces the violence perpetrated against women and children inside Kosovo.
Cluster bombs are not covered by the Ottawa treaty. They are not anti-personnel land mines and they are not covered even by the annexes to that treaty, which was negotiated with enormous care in order to take account of those munitions that might qualify under the original campaign.
I have made it clear that we are not using shells with depleted uranium in Kosovo or in the theatre of action at present. My hon. Friend made several assertions, none of which he can back up with peer-reviewed scientific research. We are undertaking considerable research into the allegations made about the effect of considerable amounts of depleted uranium that are alleged to have been used in the Gulf war. We believe the health risks are very small, but we will consider carefully any reliable medical or scientific data that may emerge concerning the incidence of ill-health that might have been caused by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq.
I remind the House that depleted uranium has many civilian uses and that several thousand tonnes of depleted uranium are in civil hands in this country. It is used for


radiation shielding in hospital radiotherapy departments and in the manufacture of counterbalance weights for yacht keels and aircraft, among other things.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Defence Secretary's answer to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) will come as a depressing surprise to the 5,000 men deployed with the ARRC and KFOR, who will be disappointed to learn that the clock is not ticking on their expected six-month deployment on an emergency operation. The Defence Secretary has acknowledged the horrendous problem of overstretch in the armed forces. Can he confirm that, despite the fact that training and the recruitment campaign have been a success, the Army is still suffering a net outflow of personnel? Can he confirm also that the day before the 6th Battalion and the Light Infantry were told of their amalgamation into the West of England Regiment, they were asked for 200 volunteers to reinforce the Army? The Defence Secretary has told us that 18,600 men and women are now dedicated to the operation in Kosovo. How long can the armed forces sustain that level of commitment, given that they have no idea when deployment to Kosovo will occur, as that decision remains in the hands of Mr. Milosevic?

Mr. Robertson: The members of the armed forces whom I have met are a lot more optimistic and determined than the hon. Gentleman. As I have travelled around the country and visited the theatre of operations, those personnel have delivered one message about the Conservative Member of Parliament who had the effrontery—the effrontery to them—to call, in the middle of a conflict, for the resignation of the Chief of the Defence Staff. They find that extraordinary and offensive. 1 hope that the hon. Gentleman feels properly shamed about even making that suggestion about such a distinguished soldier.
A number of the troops who were in Macedonia have returned, so that roulement is already taking place because we believe that it is right and proper. Those who will augment the troops in due course will have the same commitment and dedication to the cause.
There are on-going problems of retention in the armed forces—after all, we inherited serious problems from the previous Government—but recruitment to the armed forces has substantially increased. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces must take credit for much of that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British

Army, of which he was once a member, believes that it can sustain the operations that it is undertaking despite the strain, because it knows that what it is doing is right.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister understand the concern that some of us feel whenever he tells us that the number of British troops deployed will depend mainly on the forces made available by our allies? Is not the situation far too open-ended for this country to enter into, given the number of troops that we have available? We have a number of reinforcement troops for service in Northern Ireland and we have commitments in the Falklands and in the middle east—any one of those places could blow up at any time. Will the Minister keep that firmly in mind when he considers the commitments that the nation is making to the Balkans?
Will the Minister explain exactly what is the difference between a peace implementation force and an invasion force, because fighting is almost certain to begin as soon as those men cross the frontier?

Mr. Robertson: No, it is not, and a peace implementation force is exactly what it says it is: it is configured, and its numbers are designed, with that purpose in mind. The hon. Gentleman comes from Northern Ireland and knows how much the Province depends on the British Army's presence. That is a commitment that it has fulfilled well over the years, and it is an undiminished commitment that will not in any way be affected by what we have to do in the Balkans. Of course, as the Defence Secretary, I have to weigh up all the commitments that this country has and all the pressures on our armed forces before I make decisions about the deployment of our troops. That is why, when we make these announcements, we do so after very careful consideration.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We now come to the business statement.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Points of order come after statements. I call the Leader of the House to make the business statement.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The main business for Wednesday 9 June will now be as follows: a debate on the White Paper on reforming the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The remaining stages of the Health Bill will now be taken on Monday 14 June, and business for Tuesday 8, Thursday 10 and Friday 11 June will be as previously announced.

Sir George Young: The Opposition have no difficulty with the change of business. Indeed, we welcome the debate on the House of Lords, for which we have been calling for some time. When the right hon. Lady announced provisionally that we would consider the Health Bill on the first Wednesday after the recess, I asked if we could have an assurance that the Government amendments would be tabled today, in time for that. Does the change of business mean that we can anticipate a large number of Government amendments to the Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: No. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten that although he has been asking for a debate on the White Paper on Lords reform, that had to be moved as a result of the Opposition's handling of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. He may have forgotten also that, as reported in column 1213 of Hansard on 20 May, he asked me for adequate time for the Government and the Opposition to table amendments to the Health Bill. It is in recognition of the fact that all amendments would have had to be tabled before the recess—by today—if they were to be taken on 9 June that the Government have moved the consideration of the Health Bill. As it transpires, consideration in Committee was due to end only yesterday. The Bill is not likely to be reprinted until today. So, the Government took the view that the arrangement would be unsatisfactory. It is a question not of the number of amendments but of the House having rather more time to consider those that are required.

Mr. Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend is well known as a fan of Derby County, whose ground—I think—lies in her constituency. She will know that that team has moved up and down divisions over the years. Will she find time for a debate on the rules governing promotion and demotion in the Rugby Football Union—

Madam Speaker: Order. The statement was very narrow. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully he would have realised that it has changed the business for only one day. On such a narrow statement, his question must be very specific.

Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend's statement did cover the business for the following week, Madam Speaker. May I ask for a frisson, a fraction, a soupcon of time to consider the problem of rugby union clubs moving between divisions, since many of us feel that there is a closed shop of clubs in the north of England which is

determined to allow no team, particularly Rotherham, to move into the first division? Rotherham has climbed through seven divisions in 15 years, yet it has been blocked for the third time—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member might apply to me for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Because a day's business was changed recently, for reasons that are well known to the House, the Government have rightly provided time for a debate on the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, which I welcome. Does the Leader of the House accept that the report published on Monday by the Procedure Committee, which I chair, on the procedural consequences of devolution is also very important, and that time should also be found for a very early debate on it?

Mrs. Beckett: I am always conscious of the importance of reports of the Procedure Committee, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for the debate that the hon. Gentleman requested.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My question will appeal to you, Madam Speaker, because it is so specific. On 21 January 1991, the House debated a substantive motion on war in relation to Iraq. The Leader of the House has repeatedly said—doubtless in good faith—that such a debate in a war situation is without precedent. In the light of that precedent, particularly given the Defence Secretary's announcement and, indeed, the Indian view on the situation in Yugoslavia which I had the opportunity to outline this morning, which is rather different from the received wisdom, will she reflect on whether there should be a debate on a substantive motion on the war situation in Yugoslavia?

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that he has overlooked the very careful wording that I have always sought to use. He has pressed for—quite legitimately, although as he will be aware, I have not been prepared to vary the precedent—a sort of prior authorisation for the use of armed forces. I am aware of the Iraq precedent; in fact, I have mentioned it on at least one of the many occasions on which this point has, in a variety of ways, been raised, and pointed out the special circumstances of it. It was tabled by the then Government, at the request of the then Opposition, because of much press comment that sought to imply that the Opposition were opposed to action in the Gulf. The Opposition wished to demonstrate their support for our armed forces.

Mr. John Townend: Now that the right hon. Lady has changed the business, will she please Ruth Pickles, one of my constituents from Upper Cranswick, by providing time for a debate on the strategic exports White Paper?

Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly very mindful of interest in the strategic exports White Paper. However I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on it in the very near future.

Mr. Eric Forth: Could not the Leader of the House please squeeze in a brief debate


in the week following the recess on a subject that should be dear to the Prime Minister, but apparently is not? Will she ensure that the Prime Minister is present for a debate on the difference between pupil:teacher ratios and average secondary and primary class sizes, because it is perfectly obvious from what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he does not have a clue about any of these things and—no doubt inadvertently and through ignorance—grossly misled the House? May we have a brief debate in the presence of the Prime Minister, so that he can learn about these things before he talks rubbish in the House of Commons?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to provide what will be a completely unnecessary debate on that subject. From memory—because I do not have the figures with me—the Prime Minister was asked about average class sizes, and the answer that he gave was completely correct. I know that it does not suit Opposition Members.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As the health debate is not to be held on Wednesday, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Health Secretary to make a statement to the House, so that he may explain why waiting lists for Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS trust have increased, for referrals from GPs to consultants, from more than 1,500 in March 1977 to more than 3,200 in March 1999? People are obliged to wait a considerable time even to see a GP in southern Derbyshire. I am sure that such a statement will interest the right hon. Lady, too.

Mrs. Beckett: No. I fear I cannot undertake to press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the affairs of one part of the country, important though it may be.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could make time on Wednesday 9 June to discuss the plight of junior hospital doctors and explain to my constituents why that one category is deemed to be exempt from the safety provisions of the working time directive, which are meant to apply to every other profession.

Mrs. Beckett: Considering that the Conservative party opposes the working time directive root and branch, it is

extraordinary that the hon. Lady has asked that question. I simply point out to her that the Government are determined to reduce the working hours of junior hospital doctors, have done so and will continue to do so.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady is moving the business for Wednesday 9 June. Will she consider holding a debate on the number and the cost of Scottish Ministers? Has she read the Hansard record of Scottish questions yesterday? If she has, she will have noticed that, in relation to all nine questions reached, Scottish Ministers replying said that, as from 1 July, the matter would be a matter for the devolved Parliament in Scotland, not for them. That being so, what have Scottish Ministers got to do? Should not the House have the opportunity to consider whether the number and the cost of Scottish Ministers should be substantially reduced?

Mrs. Beckett: No; I am not prepared to find time for a debate on that subject. I thought that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday dealt admirably with that point and those Members who made that point.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The Leader of the House has announced that the remaining stages of the Health Bill will now be dealt with on Monday 14 June. Will the Health Bill be allowed more than one day, or will there be one day for Report and Third Reading? Can the right hon. Lady tell me—I have an interest in the subject, as Opposition spokesman on the Access to Justice Bill—what effect that will have on the likely date for Report and Third Reading of the Access to Justice Bill? A rumour was generated in the House yesterday that the Access to Justice Bill Report stage taken would be in the week beginning 14 June. I wonder whether she has any information about that which she would care to share with the House and the wider public.

Mrs. Beckett: I fear I am not in a position to help the hon. and learned Gentleman with that information. The expectation is that a day will be provided for the remaining stages of the Health Bill, as was the original arrangement; it is simply that it is a different day. I am afraid that, at the moment, I cannot enlighten the hon. and learned Gentleman about the Access to Justice Bill. If I am able to do so, I will do so.

Point of Order

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise a point of order with reference to the question that I asked at Northern Ireland questions. I shall not strain your patience by reminding the House of precisely what I said, but the question was directed to Government policy—whether immunity from prosecution should be given. It had absolutely nothing to do with the role of the paratroopers, with the evidence to be called, or with the question to be determined by those presiding over the inquiry. My understanding, culled from page 383 of the latest edition of "Erskine May", was that the 1972 resolution of the House permitted Members to raise questions relating to the conduct of Ministers, even if there was a tangential reference to some judicial inquiry in progress.
You may not wish to give a ruling today, Madam Speaker, but perhaps at some stage you will be in a position to give a little more guidance so that, I, at least, do not inadvertently transgress and try your patience.

Madam Speaker: I shall respond immediately to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and remind him, as I am sure he is aware, that the purpose of the sub judice rule is to avoid any element of interference by the House in the work of the courts and the rights of those who are answering charges made against them.
Reference in debate to the status of witnesses appearing before an inquiry under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 may, even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interests are elsewhere, have implications for the conduct of that inquiry and its outcome. I am sure that he will agree that that would be wrong.
I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in, and has read, a debate in another place, but let me tell him, and the rest of the House, that the sub

judice rule in the other place is not, I understand, exactly the same as that which governs proceedings in this House. In any case, I believe that their lordships were at that time considering legislation, when in both Houses the sub judice rule does not apply.

Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of my intention, but the matter arose during Question Time, and it became impossible for me to give you notice. You know, as I do, what a minefield the sub judice rule is in the House, and its implications for the way in which the occupant of the Chair has to rule. I understand that only too well.
However, what I was trying to do, which was ruled out of order because of the sub judice rule, was to ask the Minister a question about his actions in defending those who might be called to give evidence. I was not attempting to interfere with the court or the judge; I was attempting to assist the court to ensure that there was a greater chance that evidence could be given freely by those called to give it, in that their anonymity would be protected.
I was emphasising the judgment that a Minister could make before the actual operation of the court and the sub judice rule. I would have hoped that that would have met the application of the rules in "Erskine May".

Madam Speaker: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument; I was very concerned while he was putting his question. May I repeat that even if the right hon. Gentleman's interests are elsewhere, as he genuinely tried to explain to the House that they were, what he wanted to say could still have had implications for that inquiry and its outcome, and that would be wrong. I have gone carefully into the sub judice rule, and I seek to protect the House, as I also seek to protect witnesses and courts elsewhere.

Sustainable Energy Agency

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: , I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a sustainable energy agency to promote renewable energy generation and encourage energy efficiency; and for related purposes.
The case for a sustainable energy agency involves three elements—more jobs, lower energy costs and significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Sustainable energy is more labour-intensive than the more conventional fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries. Investment in energy efficiency, such as combined heat and power—CHP—and some renewable energy investment, including net metering, will help to lower business and domestic energy costs, which is especially important for those who suffer from fuel poverty.
As more than two thirds of the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions come from non-transport energy production, sustainable energy has a key role to play in reducing the threat of climate change. Sustainable energy is the proof that economics and the environment mix, and that markets can achieve environmental solutions while delivering crucial economic and social benefits too. An agency would champion the drive to increase our renewable energy capacity, promote energy efficiency and facilitate CHP development in order to meet Government targets and build on the excellent renewables review, the positive work of the Energy Savings Trust and the coming climate change levy.
The agency would be a non-departmental public body, accountable to Government and the House, co-ordinating funding, research and business advice, acting as a resource point for other Government Departments and statutory bodies, able to argue for sustainable energy options and providing a focal point for the development of our domestic sustainable energy industry.
Sustainable energy agencies are not new. The Green Alliance, whose report provided some of the background to the Bill, highlighted the sustainable energy development authority, or SEDA, in New South Wales, and Novem, the Netherlands agency for energy and the environment.
SEDA has promoted the commercialisation and increased use of sustainable energy technologies. Novem' s role has been to bring together all the stakeholders involved in energy efficiency to stimulate energy efficiency techniques and technologies. It has been a key factor in the Netherlands' success in doubling its long-term energy efficiency rate. SEDA's green power accreditation scheme and energy smart business programme have locked in 180 new partners and the investment of more than 31 million Australian dollars in energy efficiency, and have stimulated rapid growth in the Australian solar and wind energy industries.
We, however, are a long way from making a reality of our sustainable energy potential. The United Kingdom generates just 2 per cent. of its energy from renewable sources. To reach our target of 10 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2010, about 500 MW of new capacity would need to be brought on-line every year for the next decade. On the trends of the past five years, that would be challenging, to put it mildly.
Although the NFFO—non-fossil fuel obligation—process has been extremely successful in driving down the costs of renewable energy, the actual level of installed capacity has been disappointing.
One of the major obstacles to promoting renewables, energy efficiency and CHP is the confusing institutional set-up for sustainable energy. The Green Alliance charted 15 different Government-funded institutions or initiatives, many of them doing an excellent job within their specific remit, ranging from Government Departments, quangos and research agencies through to private sector companies.
A key reason for such fragmentation is that the institutions have developed on an ad hoc basis in response to new policy goals over time. There is no single cohesive body offering a clear message which brings together government, academics and industry to co-ordinate the delivery of energy efficiency, renewables and CHP policy. Some, but not all, of the technologies have their own separate trade associations. A sustainable energy agency would help to deliver joined-up thinking and partnership, working across Whitehall and with other players to develop a strong sustainable energy industry.
There is huge potential in Britain. The energy technology support unit—ETSU—estimated that the cost-effective energy efficiency potential equalled 11 per cent. of projected energy demand in 2010. In offshore wind alone, Britain has enough potential to support our electricity needs three times over.
For industry to have the confidence to invest in renewable capacity in the UK, it must have confidence in the stability of local conditions, the regulatory position must improve, and industry must have confidence in the organisations with which it deals. A sustainable energy agency would help to lock in that stability and expertise to grow our domestic sustainable energy industry.
As part of its work programme, the agency would be well placed to co-ordinate a strong export programme to increase Britain's share of world markets, which for wind and solar now approach £1 billion a year each. Both markets are set to double over the next three years—a rate of growth comparable to sales of mobile phones and internet services. Mark Moody Stuart, chairman of the British arm of Shell, stated in his annual report to shareholders last year:
Renewable energy sources—wind, biomass and solar—could be supplying a tenth of the world's energy by 2020 and half by 2050.
I am told that Shell's research predicted a quadrupling of the demand for electricity by 2050. That, by any definition, is a sizeable potential market. The European Union White Paper on energy stated that doubling the share of renewables in Europe alone would create between 500,000 and 900,000 new jobs. The small wind energy industry has already created more than 30,000 jobs in Europe.
We in Britain lead the world in a number of renewable technologies—for example, in wave power and in certain forms of biomass. A sustainable energy agency would be ideally positioned to facilitate, in partnership with Departments and perhaps using climate challenge fund resources, powerful programmes to exploit our renewables potential in world markets.
There are, too, many sustainable energy options that are local, small-scale and supported, or perhaps even part-owned, by local communities. A sustainable energy


agency would not only be able to promote the interests of the larger renewables and CHP players, but could help to facilitate easier access to the grid for smaller renewables providers.
In May 1997, Greenpeace, together with the Peabody Trust, installed 30 solar panels on three low-income homes in Silvertown in London. Each home was projected to save a third off its electricity bill—about £60 a year. London Electricity offered the tenants less than 3p per kilowatt hour for the electricity they exported to the grid while charging them 8p per kilowatt hour when they needed electricity from the grid. That, together with the insistence that new meters be installed to measure the exported electricity, would have brought about the daft scenario of the tenants owing money to the LEB for the privilege of exporting electricity to its grid.
Net or reversible metering solutions could be promoted by a sustainable energy agency to help to resolve that type of market disincentive. Such an agency could also develop programmes to help to educate young people about sustainable energy and to help City investors to understand the industry. It could act as a source of advice for those, such as Grimsdyke first and middle school in my constituency, who are applying to be part of the Department of Trade and Industry's Scolar programme and looking for the necessary matched funding.
A sustainable energy agency is strongly supported by industry. British BioGen, the biomass trade association, offered unequivocal support, and the British Photovoltaic Association said, "Please highlight our support for the creation of a sustainable energy agency." The British Wind Energy Association also offered support in principle. The director of the Combined Heat and Power Association said:
Creating an agency dedicated to the task of securing the deployment of sustainable energy should be a key part of the UK's modernisation agenda.
Sustainable energy offers the combination of significant environmental benefits and huge economic and social benefits—more jobs, lower costs and reduced carbon dioxide emissions—but some people still seem to think of renewables as the realm of only the lentil-eating, kaftan-wearing, open-toed sandal brigade. I am sure that the odd lentil still gets eaten, but the open-toed sandal and kaftan wearers—if they were ever there—are long gone and have been replaced by sharp-suited, dynamic and visionary entrepreneurs. The sustainable energy industry's time has come. An agency would help to turn tremendous potential into reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, Mr. Paul Clark, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Clive Efford, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Andrew Reed, Angela Smith, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. Stephen Twigg and Dr. Alan Whitehead.

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AGENCY

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas accordingly presented a Bill to establish a sustainable energy agency to promote renewable energy generation and encourage energy efficiency; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 112].

Line of Route

Mrs. Marion Roe: I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on the Proposal to Re-open the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment (HC 394).
I am pleased to move the motion to approve the report, which represents slightly more than a year's work by the Administration Committee. I should like to thank my colleagues on the Committee—I am tempted to call them my hon. Friends, as we very much work as a team—for the assiduous way in which they have tackled the subject, and for the spirit of co-operation that has prevailed throughout.
I also pay tribute to Lord Boston of Faversham and his colleagues on the Administration and Works Sub-Committee in another place, with whom we held a most useful and constructive concurrent meeting. Finally, I should like to express my Committee's thanks to the Serjeant at Arms and Black Rod and to their respective staffs, to the other House officials—in particular, the Director of Finance and Administration, who unfailingly and efficiently assisted the Committee—and to the consultants who provided specialist advice.
I shall be brief, as I am sure that many hon. Members will wish to make a contribution, but I very much welcome this debate, as it gives the Committee the opportunity to explain its proposals for reopening the Line of Route, and to clear up certain misconceptions, especially about charging and access. Even after the publication of our report, some hon. Members seem to be under the impression that we are proposing that our constituents should have to pay to come and see the House at work. Let me emphasise that we are not, nor have we any plans to do so in the future, contrary to what seems to be implied in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and others. I shall address that point more fully later in my speech.
I think that all hon. Members will appreciate the reasons why, for the past 20 years, the only way a visitor could tour the Palace of Westminster was as a guest of a Member of either House or of a member of staff. The Committee considered that the time was now right for the two Houses to reopen the Line of Route to the general public. However, we agreed to the proposal in principle only after we had been convinced that it would not interfere with the ability of Parliament or its authorities to carry out their duties.
The consultants had to take into account some basic but crucial principles. The Palace of Westminster is, first and foremost, the seat of Parliament and a place of work for around 12,000 passholders, if we include contractors, civil servants and the media. Any increase in visitor activity must respect the Palace's primary function and be capable of responding to changes in route at very short notice. That would mean, of course, that, in the event of a recall during the summer, tours might have to be suspended.
The Palace of Westminster is a grade I listed building and a world heritage site. It is of special architectural interest and any proposals, whether permanent or temporary, that would alter the fabric of the buildings or in any way have an impact on the integrity of the site


would be subject to prior consultation with, for example, English Heritage, the Royal Fine Art Commission and Westminster city council.
The intensity of use of the buildings, especially when Parliament is sitting, means that all major planned works programmes must be concentrated in the long summer recess: a programme typically involving expenditure of some £12 million to £15 million and involving 600 to 2,000 contractors at any one time over an eight to 10-week period and forming part of a 10-year rolling programme.
In addition, whatever arrangements were proposed to bring about greater openness in connection with public access to the Palace of Westminster, it was essential to safeguard the rights of hon. Members and Members of another place to sponsor visits by constituents and others, and for the parliamentary education unit to continue to provide the schools autumn visits programme. Such arrangements currently give rise to some 120,000 visits a year.
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Information, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), quite properly raised concerns about the autumn visits programme. I hope that our report has reassured him that the autumn visits programme will be unaffected by our proposals.
My Committee was convinced that the criteria to which I referred could be met, and we agreed to the principle of a reopening. Our next step was to consider how people should undertake the tour. We eventually decided that the most appropriate way would be to have groups equipped with individual audio guides, with a commentary available in six languages, organised in conjunction with a system of timed ticketing.
Visitors would assemble in Victoria Tower gardens in groups of 20. To avoid peaks and troughs, groups would be admitted by a timed admission or timed ticket arrangement. The day would be divided into a series of admission slots, perhaps of 15-minute intervals. If the number admitted in each slot were limited, visitors could be spread evenly throughout the day. That system of pulsing visitors along the route would flatten demand to a manageable level, and would be of benefit to the Palace and to visitors.
The tour would take the traditional route through both Houses, and would enable visitors to see some of the most impressive and best known parts of the Palace. It is a shame that visitors would not be able to see the Chapel of St. Mary Undercroft—the Crypt—but it is quite small and completely unsuitable for disabled visitors, as is the Great Clock Tower.
I remind the House that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires all places of interest or historic buildings to make effective provision for disabled visitors, which includes provision for the aurally and visually impaired as well as the mobility-impaired. Given the historic nature of the Palace of Westminster, many areas are inaccessible and cannot be modified. Listing regulations take precedence over the 1995 Act, but every reasonable effort must be made to conform to the Act. Consequently, any systems set up for the summer opening programme would have to make reasonable provision for disabled visitors. All interpretation must have equivalents available for disabled visitors, and access to the building must be as unobstructed as possible.
The House may also wish to note that appropriate arrangements would be made to enable people in wheelchairs to have access to the Palace, and that alternatives to the audio guides would be available for visually or hearing-impaired visitors.

Sir Peter Emery: I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest. She refers only to the summer recess. What did the Committee decide about the opening of the House at other times? Now that we work in the morning two days a week, the ability to visit the House is considerably limited. Has thought been given to the use of weekends and recesses other than the summer recess, because I believe that the House should be open for visitors at those times if we are to take the line that her Committee suggests?

Mrs. Roe: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 9 of the Select Committee report, which states:
The Committee considers that the Summer opening programme should become an annual event, and that, if it were successful, it might be appropriate, in due course, to extend opening to Easter, Whitsun and certain other weekends.
This matter must be assessed carefully, and the impact of the opening during the summer Adjournment would not be the same as at other times. We must ensure that the business of the House is not disrupted in any way. We have already thought about that, and no doubt the Committee will examine that when we have had an opportunity to assess the impact of the opening during the summer Adjournment.

Sir Peter Emery: May I extend my question? The movement towards the summer opening is a major programme during an extended period. Would it not make greater sense to experiment during some of the shorter recess periods to see how we cope with that—using existing staff or extra staff and security—before we proceed with this scheme? Although I admire the proposed scheme, I wonder whether it would be better to have some guidance before we jump into the bigger opening programme.

Mrs. Roe: I point out to my right hon. Friend that it was in the mind of the Administration Committee to initiate a scheme that would cause the least amount of disruption to Members of the House and the other place and to staff. It was felt that the summer Adjournment was the best time for us to assess the general public's response and to allow the scheme to settle before any consideration was given to opening during shorter periods. I remind my right hon. Friend that these facilities are expensive. The Committee wanted to do this properly to maintain the dignity of the Palace of Westminster. We felt that it was necessary to allow the scheme to run for eight weeks during the summer Adjournment so that we could assess the public's response and the way in which the system was operated.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the hon. Lady agree that the concept of a mini-scheme would be difficult to implement, because in our attempts to achieve an adequate scheme that would satisfy visitors, we have


sketched out proposals the bulk of which would incur the same expenditure whether we were providing for a long or a short break?

Mrs. Roe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As a member of the Committee, he knows the detail in which we considered this matter. We felt that this proposal was the best option.
The Committee has also made two recommendations which, strictly speaking, are matters for the Commission and the Board of Management. However, because we wanted to ensure that a visit to Parliament would be as memorable as possible, we decided to put down a marker. We considered that the best way to ensure that the Line of Route tours operate as efficiently as possible would be to have a small team of staff whose sole responsibility would be to ensure the tours' success, and to co-ordinate tours with exhibitions and other events planned for Westminster Hall.
Westminster Hall is a 900-year-old architectural gem, and I know that many hon. Members from both sides of the House believe that more use should be made of it for appropriate events. We think that staff should be on hand to assist with visitors' inquiries. Those staff would need to be fully conversant with the Palace's history and procedures. At the risk of embarrassing one particular hon. Friend, I should point out that visitors should not be told that Westminster Hall was the site of the trial of King Charles II.
I now turn to the most misunderstood aspect of our proposals: charging. As we say in the report, a reopening would be a costly project. The latest figures suggest that it would cost £500,000 for the financial year 2000-01 and £350,000 a year thereafter. Those figures represent the Commons' share of the costs only. The total costs would be over £830,000 and almost £600,000 respectively. We did not think it reasonable for costs of that scale to be borne by the taxpayer through the Vote. We therefore concluded, very reluctantly, that the costs should be borne by those who choose to visit during the summer recess.

Mr. Eric Forth: As my hon. Friend says, the amount is substantial, but it is less than the House decided a couple of nights ago to spend on an extremely silly and superfluous new Chamber. My hon. Friend was content with that; now she is telling us that the hapless tourist will have to bear huge sums.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): rose—

Mrs. Roe: The Leader of the House may be able to answer my right hon. Friend more fully than I can.

Mrs. Beckett: I would hate the hon. Lady to be misled by her right hon. Friend. What the House voted for the other evening was a proposal to bring forward expenditure to which the House was already committed.

Mrs. Roe: I thank the right hon. Lady. Let me add that we on the Administration Committee take our duties very seriously. We are always considering ways of

obtaining the best value for money, and, when making decisions, we always have one eye on the taxpayer's pocket.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: When we travel around the world, we see—especially in Commonwealth countries—war memorials to thousands of people who gave their lives for this country, and to keep this Parliament free. That is one of the reasons why I have grave doubts about charging some of those who visit this great symbol of democracy. I do not know whether the Committee devoted any thought to that.

Mrs. Roe: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. As I said earlier, it was with reluctance that the Committee reached its conclusions. We did not make our decision frivolously; we went into the matter in great detail. We also made it clear that the present arrangements for constituents to visit the Palace of Westminster would not be affected. This is an additional facility, allowing those with no access to a Member of Parliament to take advantage of the same arrangements. Nothing is being taken away from the present arrangements, which, of course, many Members use every day.
It is estimated that nearly 150,000 people will take part in the tours. As we note in our report, the experience of Westminster Abbey suggests that as many as 80 per cent. of visitors could be from overseas. However, a more strenuous effort should be made to reduce the operational costs outlined in the report. For example, capital costs of some £400,000 for a ticket office, the cost of renting audio equipment and the cost of extra security caused us concern. The consultants, in consultation with the relevant authorities, have been looking for savings and value for money.
The assumptions made by the consultants in their report were in general fairly conservative. Both the costs and the predictions of visitor numbers appeared to the Committee to be reasonable. However, the Committee appreciates that further work is needed. The Finance Office, in consultation with other appropriate authorities in both Houses, will need to develop the financial management arrangements.
The consultants' proposals involve letting some major contracts—for example, for advance booking and ticketing, and for the audio guides. One of the proposals, for merchandising, will be of concern to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). He and his colleagues on the Catering Committee must, of course, be asked for their views on the sale of souvenirs during the summer opening. However, I do not think that that should delay the House's approval of our proposals.
We have not recommended specific admission prices, but in paragraph 23 of our report, we gave an estimate of the charges that would be needed to enable us to recover our costs within five years. Adults would be charged £6.50, senior citizens, students and holders of ES40s £4, and children £2. Savings already identified suggest that we may be able to reduce the price of an adult ticket to £5.50, with equivalent reductions for other categories of ticket.
Hon. Members may ask why United Kingdom citizens cannot be allowed free access. The short answer is this: how could someone prove that he or she was a UK resident? A UK passport is no proof of residence—and,


in any event, such a basis for free admission would discriminate against foreign nationals legally settled here. I, for one, would not advocate a national identity card to solve this conundrum.
The Committee has agreed that, during August and September 2000, visitors on the Line of Route tours will also have access—at no extra charge—to a millennium exhibition that is planned for Westminster Hall.
Even given the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, the Palace of Westminster is sui generis: it is unique. We therefore cannot benchmark these admission charges against charges anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I remind hon. Members, however, that Buckingham Palace has an admission charge of £9.50, with no concessionary rates, and Westminster Abbey charges £5. Although there are concessionary tickets for admission to the abbey, a further £2 is levied for the use of hand-held audio-guide wands.
The Palace of Westminster would not be unique in charging for admission. The Dutch second Chamber, the Tweede-Kamer, charges 6 guilders, or nearly £2. In Australia's Parliament house, tours involving languages other than English must be pre-booked, and a charge is applied to tour operators and external organisations wishing to use the service. Although no charge is made for entry to the building or participation in public tours, a charge of 5 Australian dollars per person—again, nearly £2—applies to groups requesting a guide exclusively for them. Revenue from the tours offsets additional labour costs.
I cannot stress too strongly that we are proposing admission charges only during the summer Adjournment. We are seeking to recover incremental costs, not to make a profit. In paragraph 20 of our report, we say:
For over 42 weeks of the year therefore, visitors would still be able to participate in tours of the Palace of Westminster, meet their constituency MP or Members of the House of Lords, listen to debates in both Chambers when either or both Houses are sitting, and attend meetings of Standing and Select Committees free of charge. Even during the Summer Adjournment, Members of both Houses would continue to be able to bring in their guests. It is not, nor has it ever been, proposed that members of the public should be charged to see the Houses of Parliament 'at work'.
Let me now clarify the issue of access for hon. Members during August and September. No change will be made to the current arrangements. Therefore, on Wednesdays and Thursdays in August, and on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays in September, hon. Members and Officers of the House will still be able personally to escort, or to pay a Doorkeeper to escort on their behalf, groups of up to 16 around the Line of Route, without their guests having to pay over and above what is now an accepted "fee". Similarly, permanent staff will continue to be able personally to escort groups of up to four guests.
Our proposals seek to improve access to the Palace, not to hinder it. Although it would be a matter of regret, should the House be unable to accept my Committee's proposals, the net result might be that the Line of Route was not reopened at all during the summer.
I realise that it might strike hon. Members as strange that a Chairman of a domestic Committee should be arguing against spending public money. After all, are we not the Committees that are spending millions of pounds on Portcullis House, the kitchens and the parliamentary data and video network? Yes and no. None of those important matters is the responsibility of the

Administration Committee. Rather, we on the Committee have always sought to reduce House expenditure by seeking best value for money and by encouraging better housekeeping.
Over the past few years, we have initiated, or endorsed, savings on, for example, stationery and car parking amounting to more than £350,000, sometimes in the face of opposition from some hon. Members. It is not therefore new territory for us to be looking after taxpayers' interests.
As I have said, by charging we seek to recover our initial start-up and running costs within five years. However, even after five years, there will still be running costs, and it will therefore be for the present Administration Committee's successor to decide how to meet those costs. I can, of course, assure the House that my Committee will keep an eye on that matter for the remainder of the current Parliament, and will ask the relevant House authorities for regular progress reports.
I realise that some hon. Members may not be able to support our proposals, in particular with respect to charging, but I should like to say that the report was agreed unanimously by the Committee and only after much deliberation and heart searching. I therefore commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate.
I welcome the way in which the Chairman has put the Committee's report to the House and welcome the work that has been done. We should try to enable more people to come into the building and to see Parliament during the summer recess and, indeed, at other times.
When I was a young school boy, I was able, in the days before security had to be so tight, to get on a tram at Wimbledon town hall, come to Westminster, get off at the bridge and walk in here virtually at any time, although in the early years after the war this end of the building was virtually a building site—the Chamber was being rebuilt. Schoolchildren in the London area at that time—when it was much easier and people did not have to worry about the type of thing that might happen to children—looked for places to go. I could go to the Tower of London for free on a Thursday morning. That is no longer possible. All such possibilities have gradually been lost over the years.
It is the question of charging that concerns me. I recognise that Parliament is a working place; we must remember that, but it is an historic building, a great piece of architecture by Barry and Pugin, and we want people to see it. Westminster Hall is celebrating its 900th year; people in this country should be able to see the building. I accept that the proposal will not in any way erode the rights that we have while the House is sitting, or the rights that we have as Members in the months of August and September. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) made that clear, although there was a slight threat that, if we did not agree to the change, we might lose the rights that we already have in August and September. I do not know whether that was intended, but, near the end of the


speech, it sounded as if she was saying that, if we did not agree to the change, we would not retain what we have now—that would go as well.

Mrs. Roe: No. The situation will stay as it is. I was talking about the additional facility.

Mr. Pike: I thank the hon. Lady for that. If she reads Hansard, she will find that her comments could have been read in that way. Her intervention makes it absolutely clear. I am glad that a pistol is not being held to our heads with the threat "Approve the change or you will lose the rights you have in August and September."
It is the question of charging that worries me. I accept and understand why it is being introduced, but one could argue that, if people pay their taxes—about 20 per cent. of tourists during August and September are British—they have a right to come here and to see the building.
I made a serious point in my intervention. I have been to countries such as New Zealand and Canada and seen the war memorials, particularly for the first world war. I ask myself: why did those hundreds of people lose their lives fighting for this country? The first world war in particular was a European war, but people from South Africa, Canada, Australia, India and all over fought to secure victory and to ensure that we maintained our freedom at that time; they did so in the second world war, too. Anyone who goes to France and sees the war graves of the 17,000 who died on this day and the 11,000 who died on that day from the Canadian and Australian forces will be reminded of the sacrifices that those people made.
The important point is that, during the second world war, which I am just old enough to remember, this building, Parliament, the Clock Tower and Big Ben—many people call the Clock Tower Big Ben, but we know that it is the bell—were a symbol of the fight against fascism and the fight for freedom. Parliament and this building represent that. They are a great symbol.
We are not a great nation in a military sense any more, but we sometimes underestimate the regard that many parts of the world have for our traditions. Therefore, many of our traditions are bound within this building and our history over the years that we have sat here. The effect of charging on that worries me.
I welcome the move to enable more people to see the building, but it is the question of charging about which I have grave reservations, partly on behalf of the 20 per cent. of people who are British tourists, and partly on behalf of those people in other parts of the world who may want to visit it. We want them to get to see this place and to recognise what it still stands for in the world.
Hon. Members have their difference of view. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I have disagreed on many occasions on different things, but we agree about what the House stands for. It stands for democracy more than any other place in the world. It has a role to play. I hope that we find some way in which to enable people to see it for free. There may be a cost to pay for that but, in relative terms, it is minimal. We should be prepared to accept that.
I do not want to delay the House any longer, but those are important issues. That is why, when the amendment is, I hope, divided on, I will support it. A little more

thought is needed on why we need to charge people to come into the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is such a great and important symbol throughout the world.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Like all the issues that we are debating today, the decision on the Line of Route is a House of Commons matter. There is no Government view as such. There is no party Whip. There may be—indeed, there are likely to be—wide diversions of view within, as well as across, the political parties. It is an issue of genuine difficulty and delicacy. No hon. Member would wish to see our constituents denied access to the House—that would be entirely contrary to our parliamentary tradition—but, equally, many may have reservations about whether British taxpayers would wish us to use their money to subsidise access to tourists, primarily from overseas, who may very well be charged for that access by tour operators and organisers outside this place who arrange such visits.
In moving the motion on the Administration Committee's report, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was admirably clear about what it is that the House is being asked to decide. She made the point-it is worth reinforcing—that we should be adding to opportunities to visit this historic building. The House is not automatically open to visitors in the summer recess, or indeed in any recess. Therefore, by passing the motion, we should be creating new opportunities to visit.
I take and understand the sensitivity of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). However, with great respect, I tell him that the hon. Member for Broxboume answered his point in her speech, by drawing attention to the fact that the type of visitors to whom he referred—those who, earlier in their lives, might have fought for this place—do not now have the opportunity of visiting the House should they come here as visitors in the summer recess. Although he asked her and her Committee to give the matter further consideration, they have been considering it for a year.
I should also like to highlight the fact that, if we are to provide adequate facilities—such as audio guides in a variety of languages—expenditure of about £500,000 will be required. Studies have suggested and confirmed that, in summer, 80 per cent. of visitors to Westminster are tourists from overseas. The Administration Committee did not feel able to recommend—I understand its view—that taxpayers should be asked to meet such costs.
The Committee has also made it very clear that the proposal to charge for visits, to cover those costs, will in no circumstances affect the rights of hon. Members or staff to arrange or conduct visits for constituents.
This remains very much a matter for the House. In an ideal world, money would grow on trees, and we would be able to admit visitors and provide high-standard facilities for their visits without regard to cost. Sadly, however, we do not live in a world where that is a matter of indifference. We either reluctantly—I think that it would be reluctantly on the part of all hon. Members—decide to levy charges in those specific circumstances, or decide not to open the House further to interested visitors.
In the millennium year—with the House participating in the special commemorative exhibition, the "String of Pearls"—we have a further opportunity to open our doors.


Despite the anxieties and reservations that have already been expressed in the debate, I believe that we should, on balance, agree to do so.
Therefore, as I said, although there will be a free vote on the motion, and it is not a matter for the Government, I myself shall support the Committee's recommendations.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I entirely agree with the line taken in the debate by the Leader of the House.
I should like to begin, however, by paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and to her Committee. The House Committees do a great deal of work for hon. Members. They consist of very few members, but devote an enormous amount of time to their work. Perhaps I should declare an interest, as I have been a member of the Accommodation and Works Committee for many years and know something of the work that goes into the type of report that we are considering today. I also know something of the thoughtful care that goes into them. My hon. Friend and her colleagues on the Committee—an all-party Committee—have come up with very sensible proposals, and I really hope that the House will give them a fair wind today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne reminded us several times in her speech, this is a workplace. It is also, as she again reminded us, one of the great buildings of the world. This is a symbol of democracy; but it is also an architectural gem. It also includes within it Westminster Hall. Probably some hon. Members were in Westminster Hall on Monday, when I was there and Madam Speaker opened that fascinating exhibition on 900 years of the Hall. If colleagues on both sides of the House have not yet seen the exhibition, it will be there for some months, and I urge everyone to go and see it. It is a fascinating and very moving exhibition.
Westminster Hall is the greatest secular building in this country, and has seen more of our history than any other. Perhaps I should add, in passing, that it will see more history on 1 July, when we shall be having a very splendid banquet there. I hope that many hon. Members will come to enjoy the banquet, the first one there since the coronation of George IV, in 1821.
I make those points, with some seriousness, to stress the fact that this is not just a workplace, and that many of those who come here do so primarily not because they are interested in what we do, but because they are interested in what this building represents, and in the fact that it tells the story of this nation's past and the evolution of our democratic system.
Of course it would be quite wrong to charge anyone anything to come and sit in the Strangers Gallery in either the Commons or the Lords. No one is making such a proposal, and I am sure that no one ever would. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if such a proposition ever were made, I should be the first in the Lobby against it.
We are talking about members of the general public, many of whom will not be British subjects, who want to come in at a time when the House is not in session to admire the architecture and the works of art and to see this place. It is perfectly reasonable that there should be a modest charge for that, to recoup the expenditure that will make the experiment possible.
I should like to make an analogy, which I do not think is too far-fetched. Across the road, in Westminster abbey, a charge is now levied, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred. If anyone wants to go to a service at the abbey—there are services there every day—of course he or she is not charged; nor should anyone ever be. However, someone who wants to go to the abbey to admire its art and architecture does pay a modest charge. I think that that is entirely reasonable.
All that will happen here, during those summer months of August and September, is that people will pay a modest charge and be able to come and admire the building. I see nothing wrong with that.
There is also a precedent for the change. Only relatively recently, for security reasons, the practice was abandoned whereby members of the public could turn up on a Saturday, meet a guide outside and visit. I well remember that, in my first 10 years in the House, that practice was possible, and I know many people who availed themselves of the opportunity.
Frequently, even those who come now as hon. Members' guests to look round the Palace of Westminster effectively pay a modest charge. All hon. Members have many parties from our constituencies. In an average year, I have an average of one constituency party—very often a quite large one—every fortnight, and very often more than that. Often, to help one another, one's colleagues will sign up his or her constituents for the other 16 places in a group. Nevertheless, there are sometimes bills of £75 or £100 for three or four guides to take people round, and an hon. Member does not always pay that out of his or her own pocket. Those who come pay, and they do so extremely willingly.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: People do not need a guide.

Sir Patrick Cormack: They do; they must be escorted by either an hon. Member or a guide. One cannot just come and wander round. Members of the public of course have access, through St. Stephen's Hall, to Central Lobby, and that will not change—it never would change. However, members of the public who come to do the Line of Route must be accompanied by either an hon. Member or a member of his or her staff, or by one of the qualified guides. If they are escorted by a qualified guide, a charge is, quite reasonably, levied by the guide.

Mr. Pike: That is not correct. A Member can arrange for a group to go round with a permit in his or her name. If the group do not wish to pay for a guide, they do not need to do so as long as a Member has given them a permit to go round.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If I am slightly wrong, I apologise, but my point is substantially correct. There are very few who would want to do that, because they want the building to be explained to them. I enjoy nothing more than taking parties round. I took one yesterday morning. I love every stone of this building and am very proud of it. I never cease to get a thrill when I walk through Westminster Hall. I never cease to be amazed by the wonderful artistry of Pugin and Barry as I take people round, which I am always happy to do. I like the building so much that I wrote a book about it some years ago,


which I commend to hon. Members. It is still in the Library of the House. Perhaps I should declare another interest. I gladly and unashamedly do so.
People need to have the building explained to them if they are to get the maximum benefit from it. The overwhelming majority of those who come are glad to have a guide and very much want one.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: 1 apologise for not being here for most of the debate. I have had unavoidable meetings. The hon. Gentleman's argument has been based on the fact that people have to pay at the moment. He said that they had to pay a guide to have access. That is on the record. It now turns out that people do not have to pay. The hon. Gentleman is party to a decision to introduce a charge where previously one was not required. That is wrong.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has come in late and has not listened properly to the point. I made the reasonable point that most people who come for a tour of the House are taken round by a guide because Members do not have time to take them. The guides levy a charge, which is frequently passed on—although not always; I sometimes pay it myself. The proposals that we are debating are not without precedent or analogy.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Choice.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We are talking about choice. The hon. Gentleman can chunter away as much as he likes. He is a great chunterer. I shall not be challenged by anyone on the subject of choice. People do not have the choice to see this building in August or September, but, thanks to the modest, sensible, constructive and thoughtful proposals of the Committee, supported by a number of distinguished Labour Members, they will have that opportunity.
I share the reluctance of the Leader of the House about charging. I wish that we could do it all for free, but we cannot, at least until the initial costs have been recouped. I believe that most of those who come will gladly pay, just as they gladly pay to enjoy Westminster abbey, Buckingham palace and a host of other historic buildings throughout the country. One of the main reasons why people come to this country for their holidays is to enjoy our rich heritage of historical buildings and wonderful museums and galleries, some of which are open free, but the majority of which are not. We would merely put ourselves in that category for two months of the year if we adopted the proposal. I have a basic sympathy with the amendment, but it is far better to have the building open during those two months than to have it closed. It is far better to let people come than to keep them out.
I have three important questions for my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who will briefly sum up the debate. Does her Committee envisage that those who come will all have hand-held guides, or will there be an opportunity for guides to take people round? Many people prefer a human guide to an inhuman instrument. If so, will there be an opportunity for those staff of the House who act as guides in their off-duty hours to do so during the summer? Some of them have an encyclopaedic

knowledge of this place and are wonderful guides because they work here and love the place very much. I hope that they will have that opportunity. Secondly, who will do the commentary for the audio guide, how will it be organised and how many languages will it be in? My third question is merely a point of clarification. My hon. Friend made it clear that the rights of Members and senior officers of the staff would remain. They will be able to come at any time to show people round. She said that that would apply to Members' staff. At the moment it also applies to Members' spouses. Will she confirm that that will remain the case? One or two people have raised that with me.
With those brief questions I am delighted to commend the report. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend and her Committee for putting it together. If the House is pleased to approve the report, as 1 trust that it will be, this place will be a welcome addition to the tourist map of London.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
declines to approve the First Report from the Administration Committee (HC394) on the proposal to re-open the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment until the full implications for entry into the Houses of Parliament at other times of the year, and other options for making these arrangements, are examined and costed.
The amendment is supported by a number of hon. Members on both sides, to whom I am grateful. I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on two points. First, I agree that this building is a very important architectural masterpiece. I admired it when I was involved with architecture and I still do. It is still an amazing working environment, despite the fact that it is unable to move with the times in some respects, as is shown by the problems of making the disabled more welcome. I endorse the views expressed by others that we should make the building available as much as possible for people to see how it works.
I also agree with the compliments that the hon. Gentleman paid to the House Committees, particularly the Administration Committee. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) introduced her report with seductive modesty, but I warn hon. Members to look carefully at the small print.
Before I refer specifically to the report, I must deal with three general points, two of which are widespread misconceptions that have been repeated this afternoon. The first is that, somehow, the proposals in the report deal exclusively with August and September and with foreign tourists. Both those arguments are wrong. There are detailed recommendations in the report that apply to other parts of the year and there are important implications for the entry of all persons to the building.
The second misconception is that we have to get on with this. It has taken a long time to reach the Floor of the House. I asked the previous Leader of the House what was going on in July of last year, because rumours were circulating. However, there is no rush. Some people thought that we had to get on quickly because we were going to open the place this August. Nothing will happen until August 2000—14 months hence—so there is time to get it right.
The third point is that there is widespread concern that this is the thin end of a big wedge. Many hon. Members have expressed concern about that in the House


and outside. If I were at liberty to do so, I should quote extensively from an important letter from the Finance and Services Committee, on which I serve, setting out a number of reservations. However, as the Chairman is not here, it would be unfair. I hoped that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) might be present, because the letter expressed important reservations about the report.
The inhabitants of the other end of the building share our concerns, but they keep being told that the Commons has agreed to it, just as we shall no doubt be told that the Lords have agreed. That is not true.

Dr. Palmer: Just to clarify that point, let me say that there were fairly extensive discussions with the equivalent body in the House of Lords and only one member of that body dissented vigorously. The overwhelming majority supported the proposal. Of course, the debate will reveal whether that is the general view.

Mr. Tyler: I understand that the House of Lords has not yet taken a decision, so it has not yet shown where it stands.
I want to deal with the proposals first in relation to the principle; secondly, in relation to some practical issues; and, thirdly in relation to precedent.
First, in paragraph 3, the consultants
identified the potential to open the Line of Route on non-sitting days at other times of the year.
From the outset, the private consultants whom the Select Committee asked to look at the proposal considered not just August and September, but the whole year. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, that is still implicit in the report.
Paragraph 3 also states that
the majority of operational services
would be
contracted out to specialist organisations".
Those of us who are suspicious of contracting out, commercialisation and privatisation should look carefully at the small print of the report.
The proposal that is endorsed by the Committee at paragraph 9 of the report is that:
the Summer opening programme should become an annual event, and that, if it were successful, it might be appropriate, in due course, to extend opening to Easter, Whitsun and certain other weekends.
Where would it stop? We do not know, and it is not spelt out. When I deal with the economics of the proposal, the House will agree that the likelihood is that, once it has started, it will be unstoppable.
In other words, this is a completely new departure. The Select Committee is saying quite blatantly, first, that it is likely to extend throughout the year in due course; and, secondly, that, whatever safeguards are mentioned now, there is nothing to stop the system being extended to sitting days. The Committee can give us all the assurances that it likes, but there is nothing to stop it. Thirdly, it suggests an element of contracting out or privatisation.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Personally, I would be delighted if the proposals were extended to other recesses and

weekends, but, in respect of sitting days, the proposal would have to come before the House again and I cannot think of a single hon. Member who would vote for it.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Member for South Staffordshire is always telling us about precedent. Once a precedent is established for charging for entry into this building, it will be difficult to stop it.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? He has made a point about the Committee discussing the extension of the proposal throughout the year. It has certainly discussed opening during other recesses and weekends, as he rightly said, but surely he recognises that that would involve an access that is not now available. An incautious hearer might take the view that he is saying that a charge would be made for access that is now available. Surely that access is not now available. I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). It is grossly over-egging the pudding to suggest that the proposal is somehow the thin end of the wedge. I cannot think of any hon. Member who would advocate that we should charge for our constituents to come when the House was in session or who would vote for such a proposal.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. I shall return to that point in a moment in relation to the economics of the proposal. It is extremely important for hon. Members to recognise that, once we embark on this course, it will become increasingly likely that people will say that the only viable way for it to operate is to extend it as far as possible.
We have already been told that up to a quarter of those who will come here in August and September will be United Kingdom citizens who have already contributed through their taxes to their democracy and are entitled to see where that democracy resides. If the proposal is extended to the Easter and Whitsun recesses, the proportion will rise. We all know that far more of our constituents than tourists are likely to want to come at that time.
I take seriously the point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I remember the wartime years only distantly, but I have many relations who served alongside those who fought on behalf of the Commonwealth countries against the Nazi dictatorship. Those people will feel that they are being treated in a rather shabby way if, at the only time that they can come here, they find that they are charged for entry.

Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I want to make progress as I know that others want to speak.
I know that some hon. Members object to all charging. I do not necessarily take that view. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has pointed out, there are already some charges, so that is not the big issue. The issue is whether the proposed method of charging will be worth losing the vital rights of our constituents and fellow citizens to come here free of charge. At the moment, groups from constituencies that are further afield can visit only during the months when we are not sitting,


particularly September. A school group from Cornwall might very well come at Whitsun or in September. If it were possible, I would try to make arrangements for them to be escorted round, but that cannot be guaranteed. Increasing numbers of people will find it difficult to fit in with the proposed arrangements.
There are also some practical considerations. In addition to the outside contractors that the report envisages, paragraph 14 proposes that three new staff should be appointed—two senior and one subsidiary member of staff. What will they do for the other 10 months of the year? Will they be fully employed for only eight weeks? That does not seem very economic.
We are told in paragraph 17 that the two month-scheme will cost in the region of £500,000 in year one and £350,000 in the following year, with the Lords making an additional contribution. Within that very narrow margin, the pressure to extend the period will be enormous. Any private enterprise organisation—or any enterprise within the House—would immediately seek to expand the scheme other recesses and weekends. The Select Committee is obviously aware of that. What business would employ staff and equip itself to run an eight-week year? Of course it would immediately try to extend its working year as far as possible. The level of charging is referred to in the report and the hon. Member for Broxbourne said that some savings have already been made. Perhaps we should debate the matter every week so that the cost would come down to nil, as it is impressive that, since the publication of the report just a few weeks ago, it has already been possible to reduce the charge.
Let us consider the figures in the report. A family of two adults and three children would have to pay £14 to get in. That is a substantial sum for a small family. However, if a group or school party were not lucky enough to get sponsorship, a group of 13 young people and three adults would have to pay £45.50. Under the present arrangements, the maximum would be about £20 and would include a guide.
In addition, the report anticipates some 2,000 people an hour coming through in August and September. The hon. Member for Broxbourne and others have said that there will be no disruption to hon. Members' parties coming round. Hon. Members should imagine their own party arriving behind a queue of 2,000 people. How would they queue barge? How would they get preference? Of course the proposals will affect the entry of our constituents, whether we take them round themselves or ask someone else to do it.
There will have to be experts to answer questions. As has already been said, visitors will be equipped with audio guides of a make that I understand has just been thrown out by Buckingham palace and the Tower of London because they do not work properly. Audio guides cannot answer questions, so there will still have to be people to do that. If, as happens every summer recess, the Line of Route changes owing to building work, the audio guide will be useless unless someone is paid to record a completely new message. In addition, if groups are not accompanied by qualified guides employed by this place, security charges will have to increase. There will have to be people to keep an eye on those groups. When they come with our staff or the staff of the House, they are

automatically supervised but, if they are unaccompanied, security staff will have to be doubled or trebled, at considerable cost. They will be there for only August and September, so I do not know what preferential rates are to be paid. Or will they be students taking up a holiday job? I have nothing against students, but their professionalism would be nothing like as great as one would expect.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire usually lectures us on the issue of precedent, and I hope that he feels that that issue is entirely appropriate. I believe that, once we start on the slippery slope of commercialisation and privatisation, there will be remorseless pressure to extend the period, to increase the categories that are included—eventually, I see our constituents being included—or to increase the charges; or all three. That will be inevitable once we have said yes.
I appreciate that the Committee has done some useful work, but it has not put a choice before the House. It has not put a choice before the Commission, or any other Committee of the House. We are entitled to a choice, and that is what the amendment provides. It does not call for the whole thing to be thrown out, as important work is being done. However, the House is entitled to know what choices there are and whether we can avoid what seems to be the least-good option.
I believe that we should invite an in-house bid. In their spare time, the staff of the House—as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire acknowledged—provide an excellent service. Why should they be done out of an important role that they fulfil admirably? Why should we not see whether they can provide, on a co-operative basis, an alternative method of dealing with the problem?
I believe that we should examine the costs. It is a fact of life, as the museums have just found, that charging itself costs money. One has to employ more people to handle the money, or use machinery, or a complicated combination of the two. The actual cost of charging is not referred to in the report, and it should be. We should keep supervised tours rather than move to an audio guide system. That would save dramatically on security costs.
If it is felt that the setting-up costs are beyond what we are entitled to consider, we should look carefully at some of the other costs being incurred within this building. I understand that Black Rod in the other place is pushing through a scheme that will cost £2.25 million to apply some cosmetic attention to Old Palace Yard. It has no practical advantage for us, or for our constituents. A small fraction of that sum, dedicated to making this House more accessible to everybody—whether they are from this country or abroad—would be a proper use of public funds.
Our constituents, the electorate, have paid through their taxes for the democratic system. I believe that it would be quite wrong for us to make them pay twice just so they can come and see us and our place of work.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I have listened attentively to the points made so far, and I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the Committee. I shall not go on at length because the issues are straightforward. In effect, we have three options. The first is the status quo, which is that there is no access, except by pre-planned groups who normally pay for a guide. That means that, if an individual—perhaps one of those


referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike); a relative of someone who fought for Britain—seeks to visit the House during the summer recess and cannot contact an hon. Member, he or she will be unable to do so.
The second is to spend £500,000, on our estimate—I assure the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that we looked extensively at alternative costings, and guided groups made up of individual applicants would be more expensive—to provide what would be basically an additional tourist attraction. The third option—the one before us—is that we provide that attraction, but that it should be paid for principally by those who benefit.
As with any proposal for change, there are those, such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who propose doing nothing for the time being and awaiting further discussions and developments. They offer the prospect of a better world in which the ideal can be achieved. I have not been in this House for as long as many hon. Members here, but I predict that, if we reject the proposal today, £500,000 will not be found to provide free access for summer visitors, 80 per cent. of whom will be tourists. Politically, it will not happen.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have already had five years of revenues referred to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who said that more than £2 million was available for one project. Why cannot we have that money?

Dr. Palmer: My hon. Friend will be aware from many similar debates on spending issues that each of us can always identify one project, not under discussion, that might be scrapped to pay for the project under discussion. We are unable to assess the scheme to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred. If it is possible to save more than £2 million by not carrying out an unnecessary scheme, we should do so.
However, that is an entirely separate issue. We are debating whether we should budget an additional £500,000 to entertain tourists from around the world who will pay sums vastly in excess of the proposed sums to come here in the first place.

Mr. David Davis: We are accountable to our constituents. The arguments that we have heard so far have posed two options—no access, or access with a charge. Our constituents will look at that and pose other options. If we are spending millions over the road—for ourselves, in effect—why cannot we find the money to give them access to this House?

Dr. Palmer: I fully agree that public scepticism about the sums spent on Portcullis House is great and will become yet greater when they become better known. However, while we are not debating Old Palace Yard, we are also not debating Portcullis House. We are debating whether we should spend £500,000 to benefit the tourist industry.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that we should not be charging our constituents twice—once through taxes, to elect us and to pay our salaries, and once to visit this place. If we were to spend £500,000 on making the scheme free, that is precisely what we should

be doing. We shall be charging our constituents to save money for the 80 per cent. of non-constituents who use this facility in the summer.
I would share the concerns of the House if it were suggested that this charge might be made compulsory for our constituents. However, the Committee was careful to stress that there should be no change to the present facility that any hon. Member can take his or her constituents around at no cost and at a time convenient to him or her, whether in the summer recess or at any other time.
We are speaking here exclusively of an additional facility to benefit people such as those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, who are not able to visit in an organised group and who wish to visit the mother of Parliaments. If we focus on what the proposal says, there is little that should be controversial. If we focus, as did the hon. Member for North Cornwall, on supposed follow-ons and extensions that might happen in the future, it is possible to conjure up all sorts of alarming potentials. The Committee focused on a proposal for the summer months and said that, if it is a success—only the House as a whole will be able to assess that—we can review whether we should extend the scheme to other non-sitting periods.
I invite the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) to confirm that it is also her view that, before proceeding to any such extension, the House should have the opportunity to discuss it again.

Mrs. Roe: I am certain that the Administration Committee, no matter who is a member of it at the time, would want to have the endorsement of the House for any changes to the programme.

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification.

Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the report that we are being asked to approve includes specific reference to extending opening to
Easter, Whitsun and certain other weekends",
and that, once a considerable sum has been spent on the proposal, the pressure to extend it will be remorseless?

Dr. Palmer: I have heard the hon. Gentleman very clearly, but we must be precise. Paragraph 9 says:
The Committee considers that the Summer opening programme should become an annual event, and that, if it were successful, it might be appropriate, in due course, to extend opening
to other periods. I have rarely seen more subjunctives in one sentence. I credit the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members with the backbone to resist any suggestion that, because we have approved a summer experiment, we have approved all the extensions that he fears.
Those who debate the matter in future can look back at this debate and confirm that we have said in the clearest possible terms that we are talking only about the summer. There are three clear options: do nothing; hope for an illusion; or opt for a scheme that provides a new facility for individual visitors, mostly from overseas.

Mr. Eric Forth: I completely agree with the amendment so ably and eloquently moved by the hon. Member for North


Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I agree with only one aspect of what the report says: that access to the Palace should be maximised for everybody, be they from this country or from abroad.
We have witnessed a rather astonishing outbreak of xenophobia: suddenly, foreigners are undesirables and we either do not want them here or want to charge them. I want to dissociate myself from that view. It is pretty disgraceful stuff. I would like all people—both our voters and taxpayers and, even more, people from abroad—to be welcome in the Palace, in the right circumstances, so that they may see and enjoy that of which we are so proud. That should surely be our main motivation.

Dr. Palmer: When the right hon. Gentleman says "even more", is he saying that we should subsidise foreign visitors at the expense of our constituents?

Mr. Forth: I would not use the word "subsidise" but I would welcome anyone here, be they from this country or from abroad. I go to the United States as often as I can and visit state capital buildings—so far I have visited about 30 and I look forward to visiting many more—and I am not charged there or on Capitol hill in the District of Columbia, because the Americans are proud of their democratic process and proud to welcome visitors, including even me. I am made to feel welcome. They want me to share in the pride that they have in their democratic history and institutions, state by state and at federal level in DC.

Mr. Pike: Should we not remember that foreign tourists spend money here? They support the economy and pay VAT and other taxes while they are here.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We often say in the House how much we want to encourage the tourist trade. If we can offer this place as an additional attraction to tourists, that in itself will do much to encourage that trade, which already generates so much revenue and so many jobs. I have absolutely no problem with welcoming visitors here, be they native taxpayers and voters or visitors from abroad. They should all be treated equally.
Hon. Members have rightly taken an interest in how we defray the costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) suggested to me earlier today that a much more imaginative and systematic merchandising effort would go a long way towards that. Given the amount of revenue generated in the relatively small retail space currently available in the kiosks, I believe that he is right. We could also offer optional facilities or guided tours at a charge. The Committee has not explored all those avenues as it should.
The point has been made over and over again that taxpayers and voters can always come here courtesy of their Member of Parliament, but the irony is that, if we open up this place during the summer recess, that is the very time when most Members of Parliament are at their least accessible. I put it no more strongly than that and I will not go into any gruesome details, but hon. Members will know exactly what I mean.
We can say, "Don't worry, natives, you'll be able to get in via your MP while all these rotten foreigners are paying," but the occasional voter and taxpayer might have

a little difficulty laying hands on a Member of Parliament, especially during the summer recess when hon. Members are busy on fact-finding trips and with similar work.
All in all, I welcome the original intention of the exercise, which was to open up this great building and our traditions to as many people as possible. From that point on, the exercise has gone very badly wrong.

Mr. David Davis: I am a little perplexed by my right hon. Friend's willingness to subsidise an activity. That may be a first. The important point is that there are two decisions, not one. The first is whether we make this place available to the public in the summer. The second, separate decision, is whether we charge. I think that we should make it available, and the costs are all in that decision. After that, any further costs—for letting in foreigners, for example—are near to zero. As he says, better merchandising could meet all the costs of allowing foreign visitors in free. Does he agree that we are making a two-stage decision, the first part of which is to open up our democracy to our own people?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is right. I am not often heard to advocate the use of taxpayers' money for such purposes and I am usually the first to adopt a market approach. I think that there is a market element in what I am saying. I am trying to strike a balance between maximum access and recouping as much of the cost as possible. It is possible that the scheme could end up generating revenue even beyond the costs that have been identified by the Committee.
I am afraid that, unless I hear something very much more convincing than I have heard so far, my inclination is strongly to support the amendment and to reject the report.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Like many hon. Members, I agree with much of the report. It is primarily about trying to extend access to this place to people from this country and abroad and, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we all welcome that move. When people visit this building—whether they are constituents, friends or tourists—one can see the way in which they are inspired and the great joy that they derive from it. Why are people so inspired by this building? I suggest that it is because this place represents democracy. This is the mother of Parliaments and it represents all sorts of ideals.
I take issue with the report's suggestion that we should charge people to come to this place and feel that sense of awe—whether during the summer recess or at any other time. That is deeply wrong. In essence, it is a matter of principle.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is preparing to ensure that entry to all our museums is free. Yet we are planning to introduce an entrance fee to this great, modern, working museum. We should not charge people to enter this place over the summer. The amounts of money are trivial. The Secretary of State is about to spend millions of pounds removing museum entry fees, while we are about to introduce just such a fee in this place. That is a nonsense.

Mr. Coaker: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Paragraph 19 of the report states:
it is now Government policy that institutions such as the Tate Gallery, the National Gallery and the British Museum should not charge an entrance fee".
The report points out the contradiction in Government policy, but then goes on to suggest that we should introduce an entrance fee to one of the best museums in the country.
The proposed charges will stop some people visiting the building. Furthermore, I believe that our constituents will react badly to the concept of charging UK citizens or tourists to enter their Parliament. They will be absolutely amazed and bewildered.

Dr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend not concede that nearly all of his arguments apply equally to Westminster abbey, which is the national centre of our established church where people might wish to worship? People are charged to enter that building.

Mr. Coaker: I might believe that entry to Westminster abbey should be free, but unfortunately I cannot vote on that issue. I have an opportunity to speak in this Chamber about whether we should charge people to visit this place, and an opportunity to vote on this amendment. I intend to seize that opportunity. I believe that the charging proposal is deeply flawed, and I shall support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
We either charge people to enter this place or are proud that entry is free. I think we should be proud that entry to our Parliament—the symbol of our democracy—is free, in August, December, March or whenever. Any costs of extending access to this place should be met from the general tax fund. We want to extend access to people and, in so doing, ensure that people are not put off by the cost. We must remain proud of the fact that entry to our Parliament is free.

Mr. John Randall: I pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on the Committee. All Committees should strive to produce such a succinct report after taking evidence for a year.
I represent a constituency that is situated very close to London—in fact, it is regarded as part of London these days—but that does not mean that my constituents have easy access to this place. Like all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I welcome the fact that people will have greater access to Parliament during the summer recess. However, I am fundamentally opposed to charging for that access.
I came to the debate with the idea that only United Kingdom citizens should be allowed free entry to Parliament. However, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have argued powerfully that free entry should be extended not only to Commonwealth citizens but to tourists, who already pay tax in this country and contribute to the wealth of our economy. Therefore, I have decided not to be xenophobic about this matter.

Mr. David Davis: On this occasion.

Mr. Randall: On this occasion.
I speak today particularly on behalf of families. The school holidays are the only time when many people have an opportunity to travel to London and visit this place. It has been said, slightly glibly, that the entrance charge for a family is not excessive. However, if we add together all the charges at London tourist attractions, the resulting cost is very high. I believe that children should visit this place as part of their education. Charging will dissuade parents from bringing their children to Parliament because they will think that £14 per family is just too expensive.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued in support of the amendment, and I should perhaps declare an interest in the debate. I am a retailer, and I believe that we should consider increasing parliamentary retail revenues. I sometimes visit the shop around Christmas. I listen to the ringing of the till and think wistfully of my previous incarnation as a retailer. I think that more could be made of those revenues, which could be improved and used to subsidise entrance fees. I believe hon. Members should support the amendment and consider generating other forms of revenue. We must not rush into charging an entry fee.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I have been a Member of Parliament for about 20 years. I used to sit three rows behind the Opposition Front Bench and, in my first years in this place, behind me there sat a very wise Member of Parliament named Willie Hamilton—I am sure hon. Members remember him with great affection. I was a young, thrusting Member of Parliament who was trying to do his bit to bring down the Government, and Willie used to offer me some sound advice.
On one occasion, I had some new-fangled idea about modernising Parliament: I thought that sittings should commence at 10 am and adjourn at 6 pm because that was the way in which a civilised Parliament should be run. I remember Willie leaning over, tapping me on the shoulder and saying, "You'll learn, laddie. You cannot change things in this place that have been traditions for decades. If you make changes without full consideration, things will go wrong." This proposal is nonsense, and everyone who has been in the House for a long time knows it.
I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) who was on the Committee. I have been here for 20 years and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who intervened on me and who has said that the proposal is nonsense, has been here for 40 years. When I considered the Committee's membership, it seemed to me that several new Members, who have in the past couple of years been elected to the Committee by majority—obviously supported by others, I concede—have taken a view on these matters without recognising the implications of the proposals that they are supporting. They are simply wrong.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is one of the friendly Members whom we all adore, and I am astonished that he should support


this proposition. He did not seem to argue from a position of neutrality; he seemed to believe in the proposal. I find it astonishing that he should take that position.

Dr. Palmer: I am having difficulty in following my hon. Friend's argument. He seems to be saying simultaneously that those new hon. Members who support the proposal are unwise and have not had the benefit of experience, but that support for the proposal from those hon. Members who have been here for a while is merely astonishing.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is. That is precisely the point. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire is a wise, older Member, and I am astonished that he should take the position that he has.
I want to take action in the Chamber tonight because I know that, despite what the public think, there are Members sitting in their offices all over Westminster watching our debate. The public seem to think that when the Chamber is empty, no one knows what is happening in the House of Commons, but of course many, perhaps hundreds, of MPs are watching this debate tonight. I say to them, "Please come out of your offices because unless you come and vote against this nonsense, the House will make a ridiculous decision that will make us all look rather silly."
When the public consider these matters, they will ask how it is possible—if this is true, and 1 am told that it is and I have not heard it contested—for Members of Parliament to spend £250 million on an office block for themselves and then start charging the public to come in and see the relics, exhibits and pictures in this place. That is utterly ludicrous.
We talk about charges, but I do not think that Members realise what the charges will be. The charge will be £5.50 for an adult.

Mr. Coaker: It will be £6.50.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was wrong. It will cost an adult £6.50 to come into Parliament during the summer recess. That is an absolute outrage. We must vote that proposal down tonight. I am told that if my constituents' children cannot get a ticket from me and come to London in a group, they may well have to spend £2 each to get into the House of Commons. That is just plain wrong. I say to my hon. Friends that they should make sure that the Lobbies are tonight full of people who understand the issues and are prepared to reject the whole proposition.
We heard that audio systems will be made available for people to wear so that they will know what is going on in the House. I have been told that those systems were used in Buckingham palace, but they had to be withdrawn because they do not always work. One must be standing in the right position, away from the column or on the correct side of the window. One must stand in a place where the signal can be picked up. People said, "We don't want anything to do with that nonsense. We want the old system of guides or the right simply to walk around, instead of all that high-tech paraphernalia that doesn't work."
This proposal is a foot in the door, and whatever hon. Members say, once we establish the principle of charging in this place, we shall extend it. Let there be no doubt about that. The intention now may not be to extend charging. It never is, but once we begin to charge, the pressure will build up. We shall ask ourselves, "Why don't we build a new exhibit next year, and put the charges up? We'll introduce a new charge for constituents, perhaps of £1, to pay for the new exhibit." Such ideas will start in a little Committee somewhere. Its members will find a justification, such as a need or a new requirement that must be funded, and then impose a new charge.
My final argument relates to the whole question of what we are doing in the House. I do not want to be party to a decision that creates any impediment to the right of people to come here and see what is here. This is the mother of Parliaments; it is the institution that is talked about with respect all over the world, so do we want to get into the squalid business of trade? We cannot associate Parliament with the squalid principles of trade; we must reject all that. I say to hon. Members, "Get out of your offices, get into the Lobbies, and let's have some common sense."

Mrs. Roe: We have had a useful debate this afternoon, and it is clear that there is still much work to be done. I know that the relevant authorities will have taken note of what hon. Members have said and will address the concerns that they have expressed.
First, I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) when he spoke to his amendment. I note that he would prefer to delay a reopening pending further examination of the implications and the options. Although I have every sympathy with his desire to get things right, I remind him that the Committee has been considering the matter for 14 months, and the House authorities still have another 14 months in which to finalise all the arrangements.

Mr. Sheldon: There is a strong case for delay because the matter has not, I think, even been raised with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is planning to make all museums free. Surely the first thing that the Committee should have done was to ask the Secretary of State for his views on this matter. It would be astonishing if all the museums in the country were open and this one were closed.

Mrs. Roe: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, my Committee decided to publish its findings in the form of a Select Committee report, thereby making them public—and although hon. Members have spoken in the debate, we have not yet received much correspondence from them. In fact, we have had only one letter. The Secretary of State had an opportunity to ensure that his views were available to the Committee, and he is, of course, still able to do so.
Following the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I believe that if we delayed and waited until summer 2001 to reopen the Line of Route, we would be in danger of over-egging the pudding. I hope that he will accept my constructive suggestion that he might find it helpful to arrange a meeting with the Serjeant at Arms and the Director of Finance and Administration so that he can discuss the details of his concerns.
The hon. Gentleman made five main points, about the time of year, the unfairness of charging, the waste of staff time, MPs' problems with groups and the costs of charging. All those points are covered in the report. I am a little short of time, but I emphasise to him that the reopening is an additional facility, which would be operated on an experimental basis and, in the first instance, for summer only.
We have discussed paragraph 9 of the report. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who is a member of the Administration Committee, clearly pointed out, the report leaves plenty of room for a proper assessment to be made before we take any further steps. I am sure that the House will make its views known.
Staff will be part of a visitors' office, but they will have many other tasks. They will be required to deal with the millennium exhibition in Westminster Hall, so their duties will not be confined to the Line of Route. Charging will involve some administrative costs, but they will be absorbed in the scheme.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he felt that the proposal was the thin end of the wedge. I hope that he will realise that his fears are unfounded. Of course, the House can come to any decision; any future Administration Committee, with new members, may come to a different decision. I hope that he does not think that something will be slipped through without proper debate, assessment and review.
On the points made about guides, in paragraph 15 of the report, the Committee
recommends that suitably knowledgeable staff should be available at the end of the tour in order to assist visitors' enquiries.
We hope that those with knowledge and experience of the House will come forward for those duties. Of course, the present guides will still be able to take round parties that have been organised by Members of Parliament, and so on. Their services will still be required.
Some hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), expressed their total opposition to charging. I understand their concerns, but, on balance, and after much soul searching—this decision was not taken frivolously—the Administration Committee concluded that the cost of reopening the Line of Route would be so great that the fairest way in which to pay for it would be to charge only United Kingdom taxpayers who chose to make use of the facility.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have heard that £2.5 million—five years' revenue—is available to subsidise this project. Is the hon. Lady in favour in principle of using that revenue?

Mrs. Roe: It is not my responsibility to decide where that money should be allocated; I am certainly not aware of the reason why it has been allocated. The Administration Committee takes very seriously the duty of obtaining good value for money for its decisions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I mentioned in my opening speech that some savings have been made. I cannot comment on money that has already been allocated elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge raised a point about school holidays and family visitors. I repeat that the Committee was very reluctant to recommend charging. It is important to remember that, at present, no one can enjoy the facility during the summer. This additional facility will enhance those already provided.
I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) for their support. I shall quickly run over my hon. Friend's points, on which he requested some information. Audio guides will be provided. We have been informed by the consultants that they will operate effectively and respond to the needs of visitors. Of course, we shall monitor the equipment and ensure that it reflects the requirements placed on it. There will certainly be opportunities for staff who have knowledge of the House to use their expertise in one way or another if they wish to volunteer to do so in the proper way.
My hon. Friend asked how many languages would be available. The answer is English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Japanese. If we receive desperate requests for others, I have no doubt that we would consider them. He also asked whether spouses would still be able to escort guests. I assure him that that will be so. Again, I reiterate that nothing that is in place now will change. We are debating an additional facility for people who at the moment are not able to enjoy this wonderful treasure and piece of history.
I remind the House of four fundamental points. Our proposals represent an additional facility for visitors, especially those who might be termed "casual visitors"—the person who does not have direct access to a Member of Parliament who can organise a tour. There will be no change to the arrangements whereby hon. Members can organise visits for their constituents during the summer. Our constituents will not be charged to see either or both Houses at work.
Finally, and reluctantly, if the House does not approve our proposals—I know that the hon. Member for Workington would like to ransack another budget to meet the costs—the Line of Route will not reopen during the summer. Without that admission charge, reopening it is not an option. I remind the House that the matter must still go before the House of Lords, which will also go through our report. We do not yet know its conclusions.

Mr. Pike: Surely the hon. Lady is misleading the House because, at the end of the day, it is not for the Administration Committee to say that, without charging, we cannot reopen the Line of Route in August and September. It is for this House and democracy to do so. If we say, "Take the proposal back, have another look at it and come up with another one," the Committee will have to take note of that.

Mrs. Roe: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. He will recall that I said that, at the end of the day, the House will decide. In no way would I undermine the House's final decision. We have very seriously considered the figures over much time and come to the conclusion—reluctantly—that in order to make reopening feasible, we will have to charge.
I hope that I have covered all the points raised. I again thank hon. Members for their courtesy and their kind comments about the report. The Committee felt that this


was the best way to bring the issue into the open so that everyone would be given an opportunity to see exactly what it was proposing and why. Of course, the matter is for the House to decide, but I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment, thus giving those who at the moment do not have access the opportunity to enter this wonderful Palace.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 36.

Division No. 199]
[6.57 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gerrard, Neil


Ballard, Jackie
Gibb, Nick


Barnes, Harry
Gibson, Dr Ian


Battle, John
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bennett, Andrew F
Gorrie, Donald


Berrningham, Gerald
Green, Damian


Brady, Graham
Greenway, John


Brake, Tom
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Breed, Colin
Hammond, Philip


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hanson, David


Burnett, John
Harris, Dr Evan


Burns, Simon
Harvey, Nick


Burstow, Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Healey, John


Campbell–Savours, Dale
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Chidgey, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Clappison, James
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Kidney, David


(Rushcliffe)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Coaker, Vernon
Lansley, Andrew


Coffey, Ms Ann
Leslie, Christopher


Connarty, Michael
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cotter, Brian
Loughton, Tim


Cousins, Jim
Love, Andrew


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
McNulty, Tony


& Howden)
MacShane, Denis


Day, Stephen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fabricant, Michael
Marshall–Andrews, Robert


Fearn, Ronnie
Merron, Gillian


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moore, Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Nicholls, Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Oaten, Mark





Olner, Bill
Stunell, Andrew


Ottaway, Richard
Swayne, Desmond


Paterson, Owen
Syms, Robert


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Prior, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Randall, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rendel, David
Touhig, Don


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Trend, Michael


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Savidge, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tyrie, Andrew


Sedgemore, Brian
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Jonathan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sheerman, Barry
Ward, Ms Claire


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Simpson, Keith (Mid–Norfolk)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Willis,Phil


Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Ms Rachel
Mr. David Heath and


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Adrian Sanders.


NOES


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Betts, Clive
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Caplin, Ivor
MacShane, Denis


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
McWalter, Tony


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


(Chipping Barnet)
Maxton, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Pound, Stephen


Cran, James
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Crausby, David
Raynsford, Nick


Dowd, Jim
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gapes, Mike
Ruffley, David


Heald, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Hill, Keith
Tipping, Paddy


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Whittingdale, John


Jamieson, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


(Welwyn Hatfield)



Jones, Ms Jenny
Tellers for the Noes:


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Mrs. Marion Roe and


Key, Robert
Dr. Nick Palmer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House declines to approve the First Report from the Administration Committee (HC394) on the proposal to re-open the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment until the full implications for entry into the Houses of Parliament at other times of the year, and other options for making these arrangements, are examined and costed.

Members' Travel

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That the Resolution of 6th December 1991 relating to travel by Members to European Community Institutions be rescinded.
That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1999 for reimbursing Members in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in such travelling, subject to the limit that
(1) the amount payable to a Member in any year, beginning with 1st April, shall not exceed the aggregate of—

(a) the cost of a return business class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is any of the three cities mentioned above or the location of the national parliament of a European Union member state; and
(b) twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate for the time being in operation; and
(2) expenditure in pursuance of this Resolution within financial year 1999–2000 shall not exceed the total currently planned for expenditure on travel by Members to European Union institutions within that year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the following: amendment (a), to leave out the first reference to '1st April' and insert `lst November'.
Amendment (k), after subsection (1), insert
'(1A) a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met'.

Mrs. Beckett: This is a classic, although relatively minor, House matter, which has a slightly odd history. It would be wise to point out to the House—and, indeed, to one or two people from the media who seem to have been misled about it—that this is an issue in relation to which members of the Government have nothing whatever at stake.
The motion proposes to vary the scheme introduced nearly 10 years ago by the Conservative Government, which offers Members funding to make one journey a year to familiarise themselves with the workings of the European institutions—that is, the European Parliament or the Commission.
If the motion is passed, the funding made available—which has, I understand, never been increased, and in which no increase is proposed today—would be available either, as now, for one visit a year to those institutions, or, at the choice of a Member, for one visit a year to the Parliament of another member state instead. The low take-up of the fund suggests that at present it is of less use to Members than, presumably, its originators expected.
I see no particular virtue in preserving unchanged a scheme of little use or value if quite a minor change might make it more useful; and when the change was suggested, I was perfectly willing to see whether it would increase the value of the scheme to Members.
The motion has appeared on the Order Paper several times now. I freely confess that I had, mistakenly, assumed it to be non-contentious, as it involves a minor rule change and no—I repeat, no—extra funding. When an objection was first made, I therefore imagined that there was a misunderstanding as to what was intended. However, it now appears that there was no misunderstanding, but some real objection, and that is why the matter now comes before the House for debate as well as decision.
Before those who wish to see the matter debated get too excited or carried away, let me set out why I thought that this was not a matter of contention across the Floor of the House. The basic scheme was introduced under the Conservative Government—incidentally, all those who have objected so far were Ministers in that Government—and there is no extra funding to arouse concern.
Initially, it appeared that the objection might be based on a misunderstanding, as it was first suggested that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee had objected because his Committee had not been consulted. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) expressing dismay at any perceived discourtesy, but also some surprise, because the PAC seemed to have had no role hitherto in the setting up or administration of the scheme. Indeed, it is a little hard to see why it would.
Press reports have since suggested that some other objection is in fact entertained, and that can be aired here today.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I think that the right hon. Lady is coming to the end of her remarks, so will she give us some information? What was the overall take-up of the previous system among hon. Members?

Mrs. Beckett: From memory, I believe that about 68 or 70 Members—certainly a small number—used a small proportion of the fund.
I repeat that, to me, the proposal seems a minor matter that might be of assistance and use to Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House—and, indeed, to those on the Opposition Front Bench. It is not of the slightest benefit in any way, shape or form to the Government. It is for the House to decide whether it wishes to deny itself that facility, and I invite it to make its decision.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House has been more or less accurate in her description of what brought this matter to the Floor of the House. There were repeated attempts to sneak it through quietly without debate, as many things go through the House, but I, and others, took the view that it was not a minor matter, as it involves a substantial sum of public money. It should be aired in public, because it involves Members voting themselves the opportunity to travel at taxpayers' expense. I would have thought that that was a reasonable matter for a public airing, and I am therefore pleased that we now have the opportunity briefly to debate the matter here, to have it out in the open and vote on it properly, so that everybody can see where everybody else stands.
It is odd that the Leader of the House first said that this was a minor matter, and then went on to emphasise that there was no extra funding. I am glad that she now accepts the virtue of that claim. There was a time when Labour Members—perhaps even the right hon. Lady herself, in a previous incarnation—might have thought that extra funding was a virtue, but I am happy to see that she now regards the fact that there is no extra funding as a plus. At least we have moved some distance in that direction, for which I am grateful.
However, that is not the point at issue. The real issue is this: if one sets up a system with public funding—taxpayers' money—and there is a derisorily small take-up, since only a small proportion of Members of Parliament decide to spend that money travelling to European Union institutions in boring old Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels, what does one do? I suggest that we scrap the scheme and save the taxpayer some money. Give the money back to the taxpayer and say, "MPs have been given a chance to travel at your expense. They haven't taken it up, so the most logical thing is to do away with the scheme."

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare no interest, for the simple reason that I have never made myself available for any such trips to Europe, but I can see how the amended idea would have a great advantage. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as we are going in for afforestation, and new national forests have been set up, it might be useful for Members whose constituencies are involved to go to, say, Finland, which has a national afforestation policy, and learn about that?

Mr. Forth: If I thought that the Finnish national Parliament was in the middle of a forest, I might agree.
Allegedly—I shall say more about my reasons for using that term in a moment—the point of the scheme is for Members of Parliament to visit other national Parliaments. My point was that my preference, which I hope my vote will later be able to reflect, would be to scrap the whole scheme and hand the money back to the taxpayer.
Instead it is suggested that we say to Members, "I know that you didn't really want to go to boring places such as Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels, so we shall offer you the chance to go somewhere more interesting." By including European Union capitals and Parliaments, we shall open up the possibility of Members going to Athens, Rome or Lisbon, for example. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has said that he wants to go to Helsinki. Good for him, but what we are debating is whether he should go at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. David Maclean: A wonderful new Center Pares-type holiday experience centre has just been created in my constituency. On the basis of the logic of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I wonder whether it would be advantageous for me to travel to the south of Portugal this summer, or to the beaches of the south of France, or Disneyland in Paris, and see how they do such

things there. The proposal is wide open to abuse, especially if we extend it further, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South suggests.

Mr. Forth: That may be so, but my right hon. Friend will be acquainted with the wording of the motion that we are debating, which says that Members should be reimbursed for
the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state".
It is envisaged that Members of the Westminster Parliament will go to other national Parliaments. That seems a fairly open and shut case.
However, how we would define parliamentary duties, how we would satisfy ourselves that Members really were travelling on parliamentary duties, and how we would know what they did when they got where they were going is the subject of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). No doubt he will speak to that in a moment, and I do not want to steal his thunder. However, there could be the merest question in some of our minds—I put it no more strongly than that—if hon. Members were able to travel at the taxpayer's expense to such places as Lisbon, Athens or Rome. I leave it to the imagination to decide whether their minds would be entirely concentrated on their parliamentary duties.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I have used the scheme. As I am a member of the NATO parliamentary group, I visited Brussels, where I spent a day with the NATO parliamentary secretariat, and I also visited Strasbourg and saw the European Parliament, which did not impress me, although it broadened my experience. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great difference between travelling to such institutions, where there is an infrastructure ready to receive the individual who wishes to broaden his knowledge of them, and travelling to Lisbon or Athens, turning up as a tripper at the front door, not speaking the language and with no proper infrastructure to receive visitors?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises an important point. My right hon. Friend's amendment touches on the extent to which we could satisfy ourselves that the trips were being made for a proper reason and carried out in a proper way. That is part of my argument against the motion, quite apart from the fact that it has been backdated to 1 April, which I find reprehensible.
When the measure was originally tabled, in an attempt to sneak it through quietly without debate, it was before 1 April. Now that we are returning to the matter almost into June, the movers have not even bothered to change the date. It seems to give some weird kind of retrospectivity—perhaps time travel is involved, as well as distance travel.
It appears that we could have travelled from 1 April onwards, according to the terms of the motion. Whether hon. Members could present their plane tickets from any journey made since 1 April is an interesting matter, to which I may or may not receive a reply towards the end of the debate. It strikes me as more than a little bizarre that we are being asked retrospectively to approve travel of a rather dubious nature.
I shall leave it to others to decide whether Members of Parliament should travel business class, but why they should get twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate is beyond me. I should have thought that the civil service class A subsistence rate was quite sufficient for most Members of Parliament. The whole thing reeks of Members of Parliament voting themselves something rather splendid and jolly.
Given that hon. Members have not taken up the more modest offer that was available before, it is reprehensible that instead of doing away with the facility all together, the House is being asked to make it more attractive and to induce more of them to take up the possibility. The taxpayers must be agape at what is going on, at the very time when we in Westminster often criticise what is going on in Brussels in the European Commission, or in Strasbourg in the European Parliament.
We often criticise those institutions. We would lay ourselves open to similar accusations if the Members of the European Parliament said, "Are you not the people who did not take up the opportunity to come to Strasbourg and Brussels, but are now voting yourselves the opportunity to visit more exotic locations?" It simply is not good enough.
There is now little opportunity to amend the motion in the way that I originally intended. When we divide on it, I shall vote against it, because I believe that it is my duty to the taxpayer not to vote myself and my colleagues increased opportunities to travel at taxpayers' expense, but where possible—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not have a responsibility to his constituents to know something about how European institutions work, and to go to places such as Brussels and find out what is available for the benefit of constituents? Of course I know that the right hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of Brussels, as he was an MEP for five years. Presumably he travelled a great deal at that time and knows his way around, but many of us who have not been MEPs need to get there so that we can make the case for our constituencies, our regions and our country.

Mr. Forth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not agree that the taxpayer should pay for him to go with a begging bowl to get more taxpayers' money out of Brussels in order to recycle it back to this country. That has never appealed to me, and we should not encourage it.
The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to point out that I have a passing knowledge of such matters. I was an MEP for five years, and I was also a member of the Council of Ministers for nearly nine years. My knowledge leads me to say that I am in no great hurry to return to those institutions, which I found profoundly unattractive—but that is a debate for another day.
The proposition before us is simple. It needs no gilding or elaboration. Either we say that the fund, not having been properly taken up, is returned to the taxpayer, or we vote ourselves the opportunity to spend it much more freely and much more frequently. I know which way I shall vote.

Mr. David Davis: The interesting part of the debate is the degree of misunderstanding of my purpose and that of my right

hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in objecting to the motion. I know that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will try to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He seems to think that our objection is part of a Euro-sceptic plot. It is anything but that. If one took a Euro-sceptic perspective, one would encourage visits to national Parliaments rather than to European institutions.
The Leader of the House expressed another misunderstanding, which I have corrected in a letter to her. It was based on my comment to her Parliamentary Private Secretary when I was asked why I objected. I said that I was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It was not a matter of amour propre or of being consulted. I was concerned for the reputation of the House. The Public Accounts Committee was created in the first instance because of the poor reputation of public service in this country. My concern was to protect the reputation of the House.
There has been a decline in the reputation of this institution in the past few years, for a variety of reasons—alleged misconduct on the part of various Members, and harsher party politics. The criticism of democratic parliamentarians has been reinforced by recent allegations made against Members of the European Parliament. That has undoubtedly led to a loss of public trust in Members of Parliament.
It is vital to the authority of this institution that we maintain the public perception of the integrity of Members of Parliament. It is from that perspective that I address the issue. That integrity and that authority would not be helped by tabloid headlines about freebies over the next few years if, as my right hon. Friend argues, the scheme is misused.
In my view, the comments of the Leader of the House were a touch disingenuous when she spoke about the way in which the motion was first presented to the House. It was presented initially for resolution at the end of business on a Friday. Fortunately, I saw it and objected to it. I thought that the matter ought to be debated so that it would be clear and above board. It was then presented in a mixture of other motions, and was promptly withdrawn when it was seen that my right hon. Friend and I were in the House and were ready to object to it.
The supposedly non-controversial measure, to which my right hon. Friend and I clearly objected, was put up again on Thursday 6 May—the day of the local government elections, when it might have been expected that someone might not be present to object to it. Although I was in east Yorkshire, my right hon. Friend was here and did object to it.

Mr. Denis MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman lost three Tory seats as a result.

Mr. Davis: That is an interesting deduction, but not one to which I would subscribe.
The purpose of the measure seems to hinge on the argument that the £250,000 or thereabouts set aside for the scheme as it currently exists has not been used, so we had better find a way of using it. Like my right hon. Friend, I think that if public money is not spent, the proper course is for it to be returned to the taxpayer, not for some other, possibly spurious use to be found for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) asked about the take-up of the scheme. Over the course of seven years, the amount of money spent out of the putative £250,000 has been as low as £29,000 in one year and £33,000 in another. The average take-up has been £44,500 out of budget of £250,000. It has clearly not attracted the interest of the vast majority of hon. Members. That is fine—I have no objection to it—and it is for Members to make their own decision. I am in favour of less spending, but I am perfectly happy for them to visit those institutions to inform themselves of how they work. Before Labour Members intervene, I should say that, unfortunately, I made 100 visits in three years.

Mr. Forth: But not using the fund.

Mr. Davis: No; because of my previous duties as a Minister.
There are legitimate purposes for foreign travel. I sit on the Liaison Committee and regularly make judgments on Select Committee travel, and I apply to every one the test of whether it is worth while, and of value to the taxpayer, for a Select Committee to travel to Australia to consider the issue of missing children or whatever issue it may be. No doubt there may be a number of purposes for which it is legitimate for Members to travel, but finding something for Government Back Benchers to do on difficult days is not one of them, and they do not necessarily include visiting capitals that are in the sunshine and near beaches.
My amendment is aimed at making sure that the fund is used for its proper purpose and I have asked the House to amend the motion by adding the words:
a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met".
Making a statement of the purpose in advance is a straightforward and reasonable condition to be put on any use of public money.

Mr. David Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were passed, would not it achieve the additional purpose of fulfilling the intention of the amendment of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? It would make the backdating inoperative because, by definition, no one could have made a submission before claiming the appropriate moneys.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That would be an unintended, but extremely virtuous, outcome of the amendment. Anyone who had not submitted in advance his purpose for making a visit could not claim on the scheme, which is entirely sensible.
The House would be in an odd position if it did not refuse to give out taxpayers' money to a Member of Parliament to subsidise a trip to a foreign country

somewhere in Europe without his saying in advance where he was going, why he was making the visit and what the benefit to the taxpayer was.

Mrs. Beckett: I have no particular objection to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. If he is suggesting that he thinks that it would make the motion acceptable, I have no quarrel with it.

Mr. Maclean: That will not make the motion acceptable.

Mr. Davis: I say to my right hon. Friend that I have to answer for myself; I say to the right hon. Lady that I am not sure what the convention is.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): What is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion?

Mr. Davis: I shall answer in a second. The Minister is not in opposition; he must get used to sitting on the Treasury Bench, and perhaps I will answer him in my own time. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will earn his salary in due course and will not have to fill my post.

Mr. Forth: The Minister is worth every penny.

Mr. Davis: Yes, but no more.
The amendment would make the scheme acceptable. If the Government can accept it, I should be happy to support the case that has been made on the basis that it written into the motion.

Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps I can provide further clarification for the right hon. Gentleman. The only reason why such a provision was not introduced initially by me is because there was a time, as he may know, when the Fees Office was reluctant to become involved—in any way, shape or form—in undertaking such a role. I understand that that reluctance no longer exists and I am perfectly happy to accept his amendment.

Mr. Davis: I thank the right hon. Lady. The simple fact is that Members of Parliament fill in forms ad nauseam. I seem to spend vast quantities of my weekends writing down where I have been in my own constituency, so I certainly do not think that a condition as light as this could not be administered by the Fees Office and I am glad that it is willing to do so. Is the right hon. Lady accepting my amendment?

Mrs. Beckett: indicated assent.

Mr. Davis: In that case, my speech has achieved its objective and, I hope, saved the taxpayer several hundred thousand pounds.

Mr. David Maclean: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) can feel satisfied that his amendment has been accepted by the Government and that he now finds the motion acceptable, but I am afraid that I must apply a harsher test than that which the


Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has applied. I have great respect for the work that he does as Chairman of that Committee, and I have no wish whatever to make a bid for his job, but I am afraid that I must adopt a tougher view of the expenditure of public money than the one which he has apparently adopted by graciously giving in to the Government tonight.

Mr. David Davis: I object to the notion that I have given in to the Government. So far as I can see, the Government have given in to me.

Mr. Maclean: Whatever this is, it is consensus and there is something rather vulgar about consensus when it involves the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and those on the Treasury Bench.
I listened with incredulity once again this week when the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) suggested that it is our duty to our constituents to travel to Rome in August or to Lisbon—[Interruption.] He did not say August.

Mr. Sheerman: I am concerned, and have always been concerned, only with European institutions, particularly those in Brussels. Any Member of the House who does not know how the European institutions work and how to take advantage of them for his constituents is not doing his job properly and is not serving his constituents to the fullest extent.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It seems, therefore, that he is opposed to the extension of the scheme from Brussels and the European institutions to the other European capitals. I am sorry that I did him a disservice. I thought that he suggested in his intervention that it would be meritorious for us all to travel to those other European capitals and that it was our duty to our constituents to travel to Rome, Madrid, Athens and Paris—using taxpayers' money and at appropriate times of the year, of course—to study the national Parliaments and learn how they work so as to be better able to serve our constituents.
I must say that the hon. Gentleman is more persuasive than I am. I must admit that, using all my skills, I cannot sit opposite a constituent, look him or her in the eye and say, "I must have some of your money so that I can travel to Paris, Lisbon and Rome and to the other European Parliaments at your expense to make me a better MP so that I am more knowledgeable of the affairs of those countries and better able to do my duty to you." Who are we kidding?
A scheme has been proposed by the Government, but we can tell from its history that they know that it is bad politics. That is why they tried to sneak it in on numerous occasions after 10 o'clock at night and why they tried to bounce it through on the nod on Fridays, and on many other occasions. They know fine that it would not wash if the public—our constituents—found out that the House had extended an unused scheme for Members of Parliament to visit Brussels, Luxembourg and European institutions.
It seems that the scheme is used by less than a tenth of the Members of the House, but, because we are not working that scheme and are not taking up the amount of taxpayers' money that we have already allocated to

ourselves, we have decided to make the scheme sexier and make it more likely that we will soak up the taxpayers' money by adding some juicier and more exciting capitals.

Mrs. Beckett: First, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the scheme is in no way in the interests of the Government, because Ministers are covered if they need to travel on parliamentary business.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has not been in opposition very long—although I feel confident that, given the way that he is carrying on, he will get plenty of practice—so what I know from my experience as an Opposition Member may not have occurred to him. That is that there are occasions when hon. Members, of all parties, are engaged in business that means that it is beneficial, sensible and helpful to liaise with politicians in other member states.
Visits of various kinds are arranged for that purpose. In opposition, many Labour Members had to make such visits at their own expense. Those visits were not for pleasure, but were in pursuit of parliamentary business. On the basis of that experience, it seemed to me only sensible to propose an extension to the scheme.
Finally, and even more briefly, the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have every right to object to the motion and to insist on it being debated. However, the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the reputation of Parliament. Nothing does more harm to that than the continued assertion by Members of Parliament that every foreign trip is a jaunt. He is kidding himself if he thinks that the public do not make a distinction between the sort of cases that he describes and worthwhile trips by Select Committees.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for that long exposition by the right hon. Lady. However, I have been in opposition for the same number of days as she has been in government. One day, perhaps, we shall both be better at our respective roles.
Of course there is no advantage to Ministers in the proposal, but there certainly is to Government Back Benchers, that vast army of the bored unemployed. That army is not so vast tonight, of course, because so many Labour Members have pressing business in their constituencies. However, it is in the Government's interest that that vast army should be out of the House when contentious debates are coming up, whether they be on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, or on cutting welfare benefits or disability benefits. Those contentious debates may well turn out to be very convenient moments for Government Back Benchers to acquaint themselves with the workings of the Athens Parliament.

Mr. Sheerman: It dismays many Government Members—and some Opposition Members too—when the right hon. Gentleman continually makes assertions that lower the reputation for integrity of Members of the House. I find it offensive. The right hon. Gentleman rejects even the notion that, in some senses, we are in a European federal state, and he believes that we should not travel throughout Europe. Some people do not like what


they call the F word, but I find it offensive that the right hon. Gentleman considers that those who believe in a European democracy that works only do so for a free trip.

Mr. Maclean: I do not believe that the trips are free. They are free for Members of Parliament, but they are paid for by our constituents. What is the justification for that?
Of course the Leader of the House is right to say that Ministers gain no advantage through the proposal, and that not every foreign trip is a jaunt. When the Deputy Prime Minister was in India, Mauritius and other places at Easter or during the Budget, we all know that that was not a jaunt. Of course not: the scuba diving was essential to his understanding of the conditions in those countries, which he clearly intended to adopt in his integrated transport policy for this country. I look forward to the scuba diving aspect being implemented in some way in Hull, or Huddersfield, or elsewhere.
Of course, Ministers need some recreation time on foreign trips, which involve a lot of hard work, as I know for a fact. If one does not take control of the programme, the embassy will have one working from 4 o'clock in the morning until midnight. 1 have no complaint about the work that Ministers do, but no Back Bencher should ever pretend that all foreign trips are arduous and tough. That is not the case. We can make them arduous if we wish, but there is no need for the money that has not been taken up to be soaked up by being spread across other institutions in Europe.
The justification for the proposal is to soak up the money in that way. It is not that there has suddenly emerged a pressing need to learn about the workings of Parliaments in other European countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) tabled an amendment about visiting NATO countries. I shall not speak to it as it was not selected, but it is equally valid. Given that the Government are straining the special relationship between Britain and Washington—the Foreign Secretary is wrecking it daily—it may be more important for Members of Parliament to visit Washington to repair the damage. However, if the Government can justify trips to Lisbon, Madrid, Athens and Rome, it is equally meritorious to visit the capitals of our NATO allies. The point is that I do not see any need for visits by Back Bench Members to other European capitals to be funded at the taxpayer's expense.
I support the view advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, even though the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden has been accepted by the Government. That amendment merely puts some appropriate accountancy ethics into a system that is fundamentally wrong. I hope that I will have an opportunity to oppose the principle behind the proposal, even though that amendment has been accepted.

Sir George Young: I shall intervene briefly, as so far the debate has featured contributions from individual Opposition Back Benchers. We on the Opposition Front Bench, who have responsibility for monitoring and scrutinising legislation, have a slightly different perspective.
The Conservative party does not have a view on this matter, and we are on a free vote. My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) are perfectly entitled to insist that matters such as this are debated in the House. I want to put in on record that I have never been on a Select Committee visit overseas, but I have used this scheme. About a year ago, right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, and I went to Brussels. We had some very useful visits and worked quite hard.
I do not follow the logic, however, that the scheme should be scrapped. Given that more and more legislation comes from Europe, it is important for Opposition Front Benchers to maintain contacts with European institutions, so I do not think that scrapping the scheme would be right.
I have no difficulty with the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. When I used the scheme, I had to state where I was going and why, so the Fees Office has some capacity to monitor the scheme. It is within the experience of many hon. Members that the Fees Office has the capacity to interrogate us about the purpose of telephone calls to America. That means that it has some capacity to track down what we get up to in other countries.
I was delighted to hear that the Leader of the House finds amendment (k) acceptable. If that is the case, I shall be happy to support the motion, as amended.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I confess that I may be the onlie begetter of this proposal. I raised in opposition, and again as a Government Back Bencher, the idea that there should be stronger relations between the House of Commons and other national Parliaments. When I was elected five years ago, I was surprised to discover that one could not make a telephone call to Europe, or send a letter there, or discharge one's duties to constituents if that involved going to Europe.
Frankly, tonight I would rather be in Barcelona, but as soon as the debate ends I must change into a dinner jacket and repair to the German embassy for a dinner in honour of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that well-known Conservative hero. As a Back Bencher, I feel a bit nervous about taking on three Conservative Privy Councillors opposed to the proposal.

Mr. David Davis: Only two.

Mr. MacShane: I am told that the number is down to two. We are seeing a bit of a split. This is the beginning of big-tent politics—Patten Tuesday, Goodlad and Davis today. Things are moving forward as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) comes on board with the Government side.
A couple of points are worth making. I asked the House of Commons Library how much it costs per hour to run this place. The answer is £150,000. We have already spent a good part of that because the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Haltemprice and Howden objected to this proposal, which we flagged up in opposition and in government as an issue that


needed to be considered. The right hon. Gentlemen who complain that we should not spend taxpayers' money have turned the tap on full in the past 40 minutes.
A moment ago we voted not to decrease public expenditure by charging foreign visitors to come to the House of Commons in the summer. Hon. Members have a right to do that, but they then have no right to say that they are defenders of the public purse. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, we are not increasing the vote of the House—it is not Government money—by a single penny.
I should have thought that this proposal would appeal to the more Europhobe Conservative Members. They should endorse a measure that would increase the connections and relationships between the national Parliaments of Europe.

Mr. Davis: I want to correct the hon. Gentleman, because he is misquoting his Front-Bench colleagues. They said that no more money would be allocated, which is not the same as saying that no more money would be spent. In the past seven years, the amount allocated has been £250,000 a year, whereas the amount spent has been £44,000 a year. If the scheme succeeds in its stated intent, the amount spent will increase to £0250,000, so spending will increase. We should not be under that misapprehension.

Mr. MacShane: That depends on the take-up, and the evidence is that, under the existing scheme, a maximum of between 70 and 100 hon. Members take it up. That money has been voted by Parliament, so the full amount could be spent. It has not been spent, and this scheme will not increase that voted expenditure by a single penny. I would be interested to know, as someone who likes to count the figures, where the non-spent money goes. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, so perhaps he will look into that.
Each hon. Member can, if he so chooses, go up and down to his constituency once, twice, three or four times a day travelling first class or claiming mileage. There is no examination of how that money is spent. If we want to represent this Parliament's interests in other national Parliaments or to represent our constituents' interests abroad—a large number of people work in Europe and maintain an address in this country, and more than half our trade is with European Union countries—it is absurd to suggest that such travel should be stopped.
Alternatively, we could find other sources of funding for these trips. We could phone up the owner of Harrods and ask for a weekend in the Ritz. We could go on other junkets and do far more damage to the good name of the House. Unless we found an external source to pay for such trips, they could not take place.
I have no shame in arguing that case. I am grateful that my colleagues on the Front Bench have accepted the excellent suggestion of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I think that we should be upfront, and that this information should be made public. That is far better than using alternative sources of money.

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should be upfront, would it be acceptable for a list to be published each year stating where each Member went, the cost of the trip and what they did?

Mr. MacShane: I would have no problem with that. If hon. Members provide a full record, all that information

is published in the Register of Members' Interests. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that, as a Minister, he went to Europe 100 times.

Mr. Davis: To Brussels.

Mr. MacShane: He went 100 times to Brussels. I thought that he meant that he had made 100 trips to other European capitals while serving as a Minister. In The Guardian today, the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
It is important that members of select committees should travel abroad so that Parliament is kept informed.
The article says that the total bill is £450,000, which is 10 times what is spent at the moment on the measure that we are discussing. I am not a member of a Select Committee or a right hon. Gentleman, and I find it slightly offensive that Ministers can travel to Europe as often as they want, and that members of Select Committees can spend £500,000 of taxpayers' money as and when they please. There is one difference. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I look at the costs against the cost of equivalent ministerial trips—MPs travel club class while ministers travel first class.
I am happy to table a third amendment requiring them to travel economy class, if that helps to win support.

Mr. Davis: It would certainly help to win my support. The hon. Gentleman shows what is wrong with the thought processes behind the measure. He seems to see this as a division of spoils. I did not read the article from which he is quoting, but I told the journalist that what matters is that taxpayers benefit from taxpayers' money—full stop; nothing else. If the hon. Gentleman thinks of this as a division of spoils between Front Benchers and Back Benchers, that is entirely the wrong approach. The right approach is to ask who pays for it and who gains from it. It should be the taxpayer who gains from it, not Members of Parliament.

Mr. MacShane: One bitter lesson that we have learned under new Labour is not to give interviews to journalists from The Guardian. The right hon. Gentleman might follow that advice. He is saying that paid trips are okay for Ministers and for members of Select Committees, but Back Benchers can get stuffed. I speak for Back Benchers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I speak for some of them, and I speak for members of the Opposition Front Bench, for members of the Government and for the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I hope that this measure will go through.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I went to Europe under this arrangement three years ago during an argument over the future of the Campbell Soups factory in my constituency. I talked to an official, and when I came back to the United Kingdom I briefed the GMB union on what I had learned. The union brought a series of actions and the Campbell Soups company had to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation. That shows how effectively the scheme works. That was achieved because I managed to track down a Commission official who knew all about an obscure area of European law.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for that practical example of how the scheme can work. I believe that it


will enhance the ability of hon. Members to discharge their duties, and it will bring the national Parliaments of the European Union a bit closer together. I do not believe that the taxpayers—our voters—will object to this amount of money being spent. I commend this motion to the House, and I hope that it is passed, as amended.

Amendment proposed: (k), in line 16, at end insert

'(1A) a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 5.

Division No. 200]
[7.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Fearn, Ronnie


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gapes, Mike


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Garnier, Edward


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gibson, Dr Ian


Barnes, Harry
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Gorrie, Donald


Begg, Miss Anne
Harris, Dr Evan


Beggs, Roy
Heald, Oliver


Beth, Rt Hon A J
Healey, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bermingham, Gerald
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Betts, Clive
Howells, Dr Kim


Boswell, Tim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Jamieson, David


Brake, Tom
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Burnett, John
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Burstow, Paul
Jones, Ms Jenny


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


(NE Fife)
Key, Robert


Campbell–Savours, Dale
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Caplin, Ivor
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Lansley, Andrew


Chidgey, David
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Linton, Martin


Cohen, Harry
Love, Andrew


Collins, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Connarty, Michael
McIsaac, Shona


Cormack, Sir Patrick
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cotter, Brian
McNamara, Kevin


Cousins, Jim
McNulty, Tony


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
MacShane, Denis


& Howden)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dowd, Jim
Maxton, John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Merron, Gillian


Etherington, Bill
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)





Moore, Michael
Stunell, Andrew


Moran, Ms Margaret
Syms, Robert


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ottaway, Richard
Tipping, Paddy


Page, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pope, Greg
Tyler, Paul


Pound, Stephen
Tyrie, Andrew


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Vaz, Keith


Prior, David
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rendel, David
Ward, Ms Claire


Rowlands, Ted
Webb, Steve


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Whittingdale, John


Ryan, Ms Joan
Willis, Phil


Savidge, Malcolm
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, Jonathan



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. David Hanson and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Keith Hill.


NOES


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Viggers, Peter


Randall, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. Eric Forth and


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Resolution of 6th December 1991 relating to travel by Members to European Community Institutions be rescinded.

That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1999 for reimbursing Members in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in such travelling, subject to the limit that

(1) the amount payable to a Member in any year, beginning with 1st April, shall not exceed the aggregate of—

(a) the cost of a return business class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is any of the three cities mentioned above or the location of the national parliament of a European Union member state; and
(b) twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate for the time being in operation; and

(1A)a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met; and

(2) expenditure in pursuance of this Resolution within financial year 1999–2000 shall not exceed the total currently planned for expenditure on travel by Members to European Union institutions within that year.

Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:
1.—(1) Financial assistance to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary Business shall be available under this paragraph at any time on or after 1st April 1999 if at that time one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to the party, that is to say

(a) there are at that time at least two Members of this House who are members of the party and who were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party; or
(b) there is at that time one such Member who was so elected and the aggregate of the votes cast in favour of all the party's candidates at that Election was at least 150,000.

I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I think that one or two things should be put on record. The motion gives the lie to many wild and unsubstantiated allegations that the Government hold Parliament in contempt. It is we who introduced the scheme for the funding of Opposition parties, and it is we who are extending and modernising that scheme today.
It is some 24 years since my predecessor Edward Short introduced the scheme that now bears his name. He said then that it was
to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their parliamentary duties."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1869.]
That proposal came when more demands were being made on our politicians and on our parties for greater professionalism than ever before. The concept of the gentleman amateur was being superseded in politics, as elsewhere in life.
In recent years, those demands have been ratcheted up another gear. More pressure is being put on Members of all parties and on the parties themselves, but it is put especially on the parties of Opposition more effectively to match the Government of the day.
In opposition, we argued for the move to provide proper funding for Opposition parties. For the record, I say, perhaps a little gently, to the Conservative party that many in the party resisted the move for some years. However, it has long seemed to Labour Members that the resources made available properly to carry out the role in the House were inadequate for their purpose. It is for that, among other, reasons that, in government, we set up the Neill committee to examine and to recommend on the matter.
The Government are grateful to Lord Neill and to his colleagues for their work and proposals, to which we have given the most careful consideration. One of their proposals in this area—the proposal for a policy development fund, to which all partes will have access—requires further legislation and will have to await such an opportunity, but I make it plain that the Government accept that proposal in principle, and will legislate on it when parliamentary time allows.
Basic Opposition funding does not require such a delay. Hence, I lay our proposals before the House in the order that is before us. They do not mirror the Neill proposals in every respect, but they do follow his most important recommendation that overall funding should be increased
substantially, perhaps by as much as three times".
The motion increases the constituent parts of the existing formula—one which takes account both of votes cast and of seats won—by a factor of 2.7. It reflects the recommendation that there should be, in addition to the increase in basic Short money, a separately identified sum specifically for the office of the Leader of the Opposition, in recognition of the constitutional role played by, and thus the specific demands on, the holder of that post.
Lord Neill's committee recommended a fixed allocation of money for the official Opposition, irrespective of the outcome of an election in seats or votes, but without making a specific recommendation of an alternative formula, or method of calculation. After very careful consideration, the Government remained of the view that the existing formula, well-tried as it is, still provided the best basis for reaching such decisions.
The principal outcome of the Neill committee's work, in that respect, was the proposal substantially to increase funding for Opposition parties' parliamentary work. The Government have thoroughly honoured that recommendation. There is no doubt that the sums of money being provided for Opposition parties exceed, by a substantial amount, anything that has previously been seen. Indeed, I suspect that they exceed what anyone, including Conservative Members, might have expected. However, Labour Members believe that Parliament will be stronger as a result of the measure. I invite the House to accept the proposition.

Sir George Young: Like the Leader of the House, we are grateful to Lord Neill and to his committee for their deliberations and conclusions. The right hon. Lady moved the motion in a non-confrontational mode; I shall respond in similar mode—I hope as briefly and quickly as she did.
The view of my party on the proposal is that, while the assistance offered is slightly less than what was recommended by the Neill committee and has been slow in arriving, it is all that we are going to get from the Administration. On that basis, I will support the recommendation. It is certainly preferable to the alternative.
The Neill committee concluded that the funds were inadequate for the purpose for which they were originally intended. Therefore, for the past two years, the Opposition have been surviving without the resources to which the Neill committee felt that we were entitled. However, those on the Opposition Front Bench have made bricks without straw. In the past 10 days, the Government have not had everything their own way. I pay tribute to the Back Benchers who are present, who are here presumably out of altruism because there is nothing in the motion for them, but who have been effective in harrying the Government. Of course, all Opposition parties owe a debt of gratitude to the Library, whose professionalism informs so many debates in the Chamber.
It cannot be right, with government becoming ever more complex and with power drifting away from Parliament to the Executive, for Opposition parties to be


under-resourced, particularly when, as the Neill committee identifies, the Government have increased substantially, from taxpayers' money, the resources that they receive for their own special advisers.
The Neill committee identifies the figures. The Government spent £3.6 million on special advisers in the first year of the current Parliament; we received under £1 million. That has now risen to £3.9 million. The increase in special advisers happened virtually overnight, whereas the comparable increase in our own special advisers is having to wait two years.
It would be churlish to criticise the Government for what is happening. I think that the House is anxious to make good progress. A healthy democracy depends on a well-briefed, well-resourced Opposition. That is good for government as well. Our democracy will not be quite as healthy as Lord Neill prescribed, but it is a very good start.
Question put and agreed to.

Select Committees (Quorum)

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments) shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 48, at the end to add—
`(4A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.
I am pleased to move a short, practical and time-limited motion. It has been brought to the House following a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He has the unique distinction of being the first Member to chair a concurrent meeting of four Select Committees. The four—Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry, Defence and International Development—are considering the first annual report on strategic export controls, which was published by the Government last year.
Each of the four Committees has a quorum of three and a membership of 11—12 in the case of the Foreign Affairs Committee. When they meet, at least three members from each Committee must be present—a total of 12—if they are to take evidence. The absence of one member debars his colleagues from the same Committee from asking questions of witnesses. Not unnaturally, it has not always been possible to get all 12 members together at the same time.
The Chairman suggested a temporary amendment to the Standing Orders to provide, in those circumstances, for the quorum to be two from each Committee, making a total of eight. That is for the process only of evidence taking and deliberating. If the Committees decide to produce a report, it will still need to be agreed by each Committee in turn, while fully quorate.
The Select Committees have combined in an innovative way and have come across an unforeseen difficulty. It is an issue that may become increasingly common as Select Committees pursue cross-departmental concerns. The House may need to consider the matter again at a future stage.
I understand that there have been difficulties with quorum in two Select Committee meetings jointly to consider single gateways. The motion as it stands will not help them, but I am willing to look at that matter again in consultation with the relevant House Committees, if necessary. With that, I hope that the House will approve the motion.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Yet again this evening, I find myself in agreement with Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office made the case clearly and cogently. It is one with which we are entirely happy to concur.
I make two brief points. First, Select Committees are always at their best if they are rather more than quorate. I hope that the motion will not be taken as any encouragement for Members to stay away. Secondly, it behoves us all to look carefully at the structure and


timetabling of Committees in the House to make it easier for Members to fulfil both their Committee commitments and their responsibilities in the Chamber.
With those two minor caveats, I am happy on behalf of the Opposition Front-Bench team to support the motion.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office for moving the motion. The motion arises from an extraordinarily unique situation in which we are trying to develop a joint Committee—comprising four Select Committees, which is in itself a pretty formidable exercise—to inquire into the annual report on strategic export controls.
We have already met, and I believe that the position will be fully protected, so that every member of every Committee will be entitled to attend. When the joint Committee's reports are prepared, the whole Committees will be able to participate.
We feel that, in dealing with the nitty-gritty of the Committee's work, a quorum of three members per Committee would be not only onerous, but difficult for us in dealing with our business from one minute to the next. The motion contains a very modest request on an experimental matter, and I think that the House should support it and give the arrangement a chance to work.
The joint Committee is the first one in which four Select Committees have been combined in this way. It will be very interesting to see how the Committee proceeds, especially as we shall have to proceed by consensus. We shall have to wait to see how well we do in that.
We believe that the Committee has the job of scrutinising the Government's very important initiative on a joint inquiry into the first annual report on strategic export controls, and I really do believe that the House should give us the chance to try to make that process work. I am making the request on behalf not of one side of the House or one Committee, but of both sides of the House and all the Committees—who asked me, as Chairman, to write to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ask for the motion to be tabled and moved. I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. David Heath: There is a consensus on the issue on both sides of the House. I concur entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is my Chairman on the joint Committee on strategic arms exports. I also note that, if this were a sitting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we would be quorate.
However, there is a real difficulty in the way in which the quadripartite Committee has been established—which is not to say that Liberal Democrat Members do not welcome its establishment or are not determined to make it work. The sad fact is that the House's Standing Orders do not make it easy for joint Committees to operate. I suggest to the Minister, in commending the motion to the House, that that matter should perhaps be considered, either in the Modernisation Committee or elsewhere, so that we might establish an apparatus enabling an ad hoc joint Committee— as this one is—to work effectively.
I do not think that the matter dealt with in the motion is the only procedural problem that the Committee will experience as we do our work. However, I am sure that we shall find ways of avoiding the pitfalls that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has described. Nevertheless, I foresee all sorts of difficulties, such as when the various Select Committees, having agreed one of the quadripartite Committee's reports, propose different and various amendments to it in their own Committees. We shall have to determine how to resolve those differences, should they arise.
I hope that the Committee will be able to work by consensus. I have some confidence that, under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, we shall be able to do so. However, we shall have to find an apparatus enabling the system to work.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I should like to make a somewhat different speech on the matter by dealing with an issue that I do not think the House has yet fully considered—the implications of the joint Committee for the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Perhaps I should explain that that Committee is not quite a Select Committee of the House of Commons, but was established under the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. It is essentially a Committee that is appointed by the Prime Minister, although it is not a Committee of Parliament.
When I first heard about the establishment of the joint Committee—chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—on the annual report on strategic export controls, it seemed to me quite obvious—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is slightly off the mark; he must restrict his remarks precisely to the matter of the quorum.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thought that, although the Intelligence and Security Committee is not a Committee of Parliament, it should have been represented on the Joint Committee—which deals specifically with issues that are relevant to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I should have thought that, in ideal circumstances—were the Intelligence and Security Committee a parliamentary Committee—we should ourselves want to have a quorum of at least two people from that Committee on the joint Committee, to ensure that its proceedings are properly reported back to our Committee. Regrettably, however, that is not to be the case.
I am taking this opportunity simply to flag up once again the principle that the Intelligence and Security Committee should be a fully parliamentary Committee.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am tempted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) along the path of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the particular problems in relation to intelligence that were raised in the Foreign Affairs Committee's inquiry into Sierra Leone, but I suspect that, were Ito do so, I should be properly cut off very quickly by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was also tempted to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), if only to allow him to get his breath back. However, I shall just make a general point—in what is, essentially, a very quorate Foreign Affairs Committee—on the peculiar problems highlighted by the quadripartite Committee.
The fact that each Department is monitored by one House Select Committee creates a certain inflexibility. We have come across that problem in dealing with Europe, for example, as we have no European Select Committee with our continental partners.
Some of us attended the joint Committee's first meeting, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil did extremely well in steering us through some of the pitfalls that became readily apparent. Clearly, the normal concept of one Department, one Committee cannot easily be adapted under our current Standing Orders to accommodate this new creation of a quadripartite Committee. Everyone accepts that it would be absurd if the same Minister had to appear before four separate Select Committees—the Select Committees on Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs, Defence and International Development—to go over, in total duplication, the same ground.
It was therefore quite proper that the new creation should somehow be grafted on to our system. However, in that first meeting, it became apparent that—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said—we shall have to consider very carefully the inflexibilities that have arisen in the Select Committee system. I should hope that, after a due period of experience, we shall return to a consideration of ways and means of adapting our Standing Orders to the new creation.
Let us proceed as best we can. If people of ill will wish to make life in Committee very difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, they will certainly be able to do so, particularly in the relationship between the newly created Committee and the other Committees, and in the agreement—or non-agreement—of its subsequent reports.
Today, however, let us give the motion a fair wind. The matter will have to return to the House—so that our Standing Orders may be reconsidered, and so that we may, through experience, ensure that the new Committee is established properly within our Standing Orders to work and to avoid duplication.

Mr. John Healey: I welcome the motion, but regret its limitation in applying only
where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently".
Two Select Committee inquiries in which Select Committees have combined forces are currently under way. The first is the joint Committee on strategic export controls—which has given rise to the motion—and the second is the joint inquiry into the single work-focused gateway by the Select Committee on Social Security and my own Employment Sub-Committee. While the Social Security Committee has the standard 11 members, the Employment Sub-Committee has only eight and in

practice has only seven, because the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has been promoted to the Front Bench and we have been waiting many months for a replacement.
Some may feel that we are slacking if we are unable to find three of our seven for meetings of the joint Committee, but we are also pursuing a joint inquiry with the Education Sub-Committee on access for all to further and higher education and on the barriers to employment and education for disabled people. The Sub-Committee is also concluding an inquiry into the future of the Employment Service. Tomorrow we start taking evidence from the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England on the labour market and employment implications of economic and monetary union.
Despite that work load, we were determined to undertake a joint inquiry with the Social Security Committee into the single work-focused gateway, because it is potentially the most radical step forward in welfare reform and could result in very radical changes to the way in which people experience the welfare system. It seemed proper to combine our expertise on the issue.
However, both Committees are frustrated by the Standing Orders under which we have to operate. At one of our first evidence sessions there were four members of the Social Security Committee, but only two from the Employment Sub-Committee. We had to take evidence not as a joint Committee, but as the Social Security Committee. That meant that the two of us from the Sub-Committee had to sit through the evidence session and were not allowed to ask questions. In the following evidence session there were four members from the Employment Sub-Committee and three from the Social Security Committee, but one was likely to have to leave 15 minutes before the end of the evidence session, so we were obliged to take evidence as the Employment Sub-Committee, and the three from the Social Security Committee were unable to make a contribution to the proceedings.
I appreciate that there may be a danger in reducing the quorum of a Select Committee to two, particularly as the Chairman generally has only the casting vote, which may allow the other members present to drive through whatever they want. However, that need not be a problem because most Select Committee work proceeds on the basis of consensus. It is feasible to reduce the quorum for evidence sessions only, leaving it at three when the Committee is making decisions or considering a draft report.
The predicament that has given rise to the motion is a symptom of a wider challenge for the Select Committee system. As the Government increasingly do business across Departments, the departmental Select Committees will become increasingly ill-suited to the job of scrutinising what the Executive are doing, unless we can also work more effectively across departmental boundaries. Joined-up government requires joined-up scrutiny.
The problem will recur. Any inquiry that Parliament might wish to undertake on the work of the social exclusion unit would involve contributions from the Committees on Home Affairs, Social Security, Health and Employment. The same might be true of scrutinising the work of the women's unit, drugs policies and, arguably, anything that falls within the remit of the Cabinet Office, for which Parliament has no Select Committee.
I welcome the motion, but I urge the Government to consider a wider review of the work and Standing Orders of Select Committees through the Liaison Committee or the Privileges Committee so that we can do our work more effectively and scrutinise the Government's business properly.

8.35

Mr. Tipping: In my opening remarks I made it clear that with increasing cross-departmental co-operation there would be a need for Select Committees to work more closely together. That would necessitate a further look at the Standing Orders. That has been reinforced by hon. Members from both sides. We will look again at the issue.
Question put and agreed to. 
Resolved,
That, for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments) shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 48, at the end to add—
`(4A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND

Ordered,

That, in pursuance of section 1(2) of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987, Mr. Eric Martlew be appointed a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund in the room of Paddy Tipping.—[Mr. Paddy Tipping.]

DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FUNCTIONS AND STANDARDS) BILL

Ordered,

That a Select Committee of eight Members be appointed to join with a committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill published in the Command Paper entitled Local Leadership, Local Choice (Cm. 4298);
That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii)to report from time to time;
(iii) to appoint specialist advisers;
(iv) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and
(v) to communicate to any Select Committee appointed by either House its evidence and any documents of common interest;

That the Committee shall report by 31st July 1999;

That Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Graham Stringer, Ms Margaret Moran, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. Robin Corbett, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. James Gray and Mr. Paul Burstow be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

PETITION

Conservation and the Environment (Purbeck)

Mr. Christopher Fraser: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition, the signatures for which have been collected by my constituent, Mr. James Selby Bennett, since last Saturday in the Purbeck district council area of my constituency. The petition says:
Purbeck's position is unique due to its contribution to the nation's needs for oil, minerals, tourism and the Army's only tank training centre. Purbeck receives no additional recompense for this contribution. Purbeck is also an area of unusual geography, which in turn produces an environment of extraordinary rarity and fragility. For several decades the need to improve the single dangerous road access to Purbeck has been recognised but has been put off pending a large development which was intended to fund it. Now road access rectification has been prevented by the environmental designation of a small part of the route alongside a railway.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to
1. achieve a balance between the conservation issues and the safety and environmental damage to the Purbeck community, and
2. ensure that this balance is struck by our own Government and not delegated to the commission of the European Union.
I share my constituents' view that this is a matter to be decided by our British Government. Almost 1,500 signatures have been collected since Saturday in a small area of my constituency.
To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Bill Sutherland

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I rise from a slightly unaccustomed position on the Back Benches to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Sutherland, who was at one time in the service of the police. I do so because I have had no success in having it properly examined by other means. In a sense, this is an action of last resort, so I make no apology for detaining the House. It may be useful to the Minister if I outline some of the main points of the case and then draw some conclusions.
In June 1988, Mr. Sutherland, who was then a police constable, attended a planning committee meeting regarding the application of a Mr. Sam Morris for a toy and leisure centre to be sited opposite Caledonian Road underground station in Islington. He attended as a private resident, as was made clear at the outset. However, the neighbourhood watch co-ordinator was unable to speak, so Mr. Sutherland was asked to comment. He gave the opinion of the local residents, with which he agreed, who were generally against the application. Summing up, the council highlighted the comments made by Mr. Sutherland and the application was refused. It was later reported, incorrectly, in the Islington Gazette that Mr. Sutherland had attended as the local policeman and had given the views of the police. That was not the case, as was made clear at the time. Chief Superintendent Alan Moss later wrote to the council's planning committee to explain that the police had no serious objections to the case.
On 2 August 1988, PC Sutherland, as he was then, was made aware that his actions at the planning committee had caused the wrath of his chief superintendent at Holloway, Archie Newlands. Chief Superintendent Newlands informed PC Sutherland that Chief Superintendent Moss was annoyed at his input at the planning meeting and that he should contact Chief Superintendent Moss. Chief Superintendent Newlands humiliated PC Sutherland and treated him in an unnecessarily callous manner, choosing deliberately to misunderstand his presence at that committee. So bad was his treatment of Mr. Sutherland that Superintendent Doug Hopkins, his deputy, subsequently apologised for his behaviour when he left the office.
Later in August, PC Sutherland was contacted by two of Chief Superintendent Newlands's secretaries regarding their concerns that they had received a call from Mr. Morris asking favours of Chief Superintendent Newlands. Mr. Morris wanted a letter sent to Islington borough council with Chief Superintendent Newlands's signature on it. The secretaries asked PC Sutherland to report the matter to the area senior management, which he subsequently did.
As the Minister will recall, or be reminded of in his briefing, that was not long after the Holloway Road incident, which had repercussions on the internal police investigation procedure, so everyone at Holloway was a little sensitive about these matters. PC Sutherland felt that, as a result of the Holloway Road incident, they would be more reactive and responsive to complaints. They were

told by senior management that all officers must act with "openness and honesty" at all times if they suspected a fellow officer of wrongdoing. Quite rightly, people feared the repetition of such an incident.
In September 1988, PC Sutherland reported Chief Superintendent Newlands's behaviour and his relationship with Mr. Morris to Assistant Commissioner Geoffrey McLean at New Scotland Yard. He advised that PC Sutherland should not continue his service at Holloway and he was subsequently moved. Commander Ken Merton was put in charge of the inquiry. PC Sutherland was told that the inquiry would take six weeks, but eventually it took just over six months. Commander Merton retired after six weeks and the inquiry was taken over by John Gold Taylor. PC Sutherland was interviewed for three days.
In November 1988, it came to Mr. Sutherland's attention that Chief Superintendent Newlands was being transferred to Brixton in January 1989 with no explanation. On 8 February 1989, PC Sutherland was finally informed that his complaints were unfounded and no further explanation was given. Yet early on in the inquiry, PC Sutherland had been informed that Mr. Morris had denied making any phone calls, whereas it was subsequently found that he had. In addition, PC Sutherland had been told early on that the secretaries, both of whom he had known for a number of years, had substantiated his allegations at the time.
Mr. Sutherland, as he is now, agreed to go along with the investigation because he trusted the system. Now, after all these years and all his attempts to get some redress, he feels tricked and deeply disillusioned with the manner in which he was treated. He says that, with hindsight, he would have serious doubts about going through the same process again. When I discussed the matter with him, he said that although he still maintains that an extra wrong would not put the case right, he feels deeply unhappy that the blame seemed to have been placed on him rather than the person whom he alleged had committed a wrongdoing.
Mr. and Mrs. Sutherland had lived in the Holloway area for more than 20 years and Mr. Sutherland had spent some 25 years policing the area. He was highly respected in the area and in the police force and he had been awarded the British Empire Medal for his outstanding contribution of police service to the community. That is hardly the record of someone who was an internal troublemaker or a discredit to the police force. However, when he made the complaint against Chief Superintendent Newlands, he was taken away and sent to a crime prevention branch. In other words, he was treated like a leper.
In contrast, Chief Superintendent Newlands continued to work at Holloway during the first part of the investigation until he was moved. Later, it seems as though nothing was done about his behaviour—nor did he have to comment on it at any time. It is strange that Chief Superintendent Newlands was moved in the middle of the inquiry, despite the fact that apparently no wrongdoing was found to have occurred.
Mr. Sutherland says that, when such an experience happens, it seriously weakens the foundations upon which so much of life is built, particularly in a force as closely knit as the police. It also clearly affects one's self-esteem and self-respect, and he has been made to suffer.


His health has deteriorated dramatically, and he suffers from a serious nervous complaint for which he has been receiving treatment for some time.
Mr. Sutherland said:
People have always looked up to the Police as a benchmark of what is good and honourable, and rightly so. In my case, that has been destroyed and I, an ex-policeman, would never trust them in future.
That reaction might be expected, but it is one that I would hope the Minister will address.
What is clear is that the internal investigations system did not work, and there are serious questions about whether it would work in future cases similar to that of Mr. Sutherland. Surely the case should not have taken so long and then been dismissed in such an arbitrary way. Mr. Sutherland believes that the manner in which the witnesses were interviewed was biased, and certainly was not open. All the witnesses were serving officers in the Holloway division and at no time was he allowed access to any of them. Mr. Sutherland made the complaint in good faith about the chief superintendent because of information that he was given by the chief superintendent's secretaries. Clearly, he had nothing to gain from such a complaint and, as we have seen, he had everything to lose. Yet he still made the complaint.
Mr. Sutherland believes that some form of independent ombudsman should handle internal complaints. He believes that the police have far too much power to be both judge and jury inside a closed system, without redress for those who have come forward with issues of conscience or with problems that they have seen in the system.
Mr. Sutherland recognises that the introduction of "Right Line"—which allows staff to pass any concerns about a colleague whom they believed might be acting improperly—while encouraging, does not go far enough. Some forces are setting up proactive squads which seek to identify corruption before it comes into the public arena. However, there is more to be done to encourage those who are decent, honourable and honest to come forward without fear of the repercussions that happened to my constituent.
During, and particularly after, the investigation, Mr. Sutherland was shunned by other policemen. It is difficult always to specify how the process works, but I am sure that the Minister would accept that that sort of thing happens in a tight-knit community—particularly if it is encouraged from the top by a nod or a wink, or if there is a general assessment that somebody is a troublemaker.
In the end, Mr. Sutherland was invalided out of the police force, directly as a result of an accident at an athletics track, which Mr. Sutherland believes—I do not intend to cast aspersions on any individual—was not an accident. He believed that it occurred as a result of those in his company at the time taking a view about his previous actions. I am not attempting to make further allegations about individuals.
I raise the matter because I was deeply concerned about this matter some years ago, and I have tried hard to seek redress for Mr. Sutherland. Not once have I had the whisper of an apology or an attempt to reopen the case, to look at it properly, or to ask the questions that should have been asked. Every time, I am told, "It is too long after the event. It is so stupid to open up cases again. We have other, more important, things to do than that."
In conclusion, Mr. Sutherland used to be a policeman, and he used to serve the force and the public with great honesty and decency. Every day, he set about doing what he believed to be right and proper, in line with his duties. In July 1988, he had, for the first and perhaps only time, cause to complain about someone in authority—in this case, his chief superintendent. He is now dead but, due to a variety of issues, Mr. Sutherland was concerned about his actions. Yet he was made to feel as though he should not have made the allegation.
Having raised the issue, far from being applauded for doing what he thought was right, Mr. Sutherland was shunned, ostracised, moved, humiliated and, eventually, forced to leave the police force. His crime was to raise a concern about a senior officer who, he thought, had got too close to somebody outside and was open to the wrong sort of influence in the pursuit of his duty.
When the case was finally examined, the individuals about whom Mr. Sutherland had raised concerns were utterly exonerated, and no comment was made to him about the reasons or about what happened in the inquiry. Perversely, after a series of problems, the man who had had the temerity to raise the matter was eventually invalided out of the police force. To this day, he continues to attempt to get the police to investigate the original charges reasonably and properly or at least to give him a full, open explanation of why his case was dismissed and he was treated as he was.
I hope that the police will have the decency to reopen the case and that the Minister will say that they should. Given all the circumstances surrounding the case, the police would do well to allow my constituent to get redress. On his behalf, I say that it is never any good to try to shoot the messenger. Surely an organisation such as the police force should learn to deal with the message.
My constituent has suffered; his life has changed and it will never be changed back. He has to live with that, and I see no reason why the police should avoid any further investigation. I ask the Minister to put pressure on them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Gentleman has set out in some detail his concerns relating to the case of Bill Sutherland, a retired Metropolitan Police officer. As he will know, I am not the regular spokesperson on the Metropolitan police. That task is ably carried out by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I regret to say that she is in Brussels, at a meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. However, I am very happy to respond.
The investigation of internal complaints is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who has provided me with information about the background to the matter, about the initial inquiry and about the subsequent review in 1995 by Commander Quinn, director of the Metropolitan Police's complaints investigation bureau.
The Commissioner tells me that in July 1988 the then PC William Sutherland made a series of allegations about the management of the Holloway division where he was based, in particular in respect of a Chief Superintendent Newlands, now deceased, and his association with a local business man, Mr. Sam Morris, also now deceased. In all, allegations were made against three serving officers.
As those against whom the allegations were made were of a senior rank, in line with the regulations in force at the time, the then commander of the complaints investigation bureau led the inquiry. As a matter of record, I should remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1988 the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 were in force; they have now been superseded by the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, although those apply only to complaints made after 1 April 1999.
Because none of the allegations concerned criminal activity, the inquiry was internal and did not require the involvement of officers from an outside force. During the inquiry, which lasted from July 1988 to January 1989, I am told that Mr. Sutherland gave a detailed written statement, and the hon. Gentleman tells me that he was interviewed. A further 18 witnesses were seen, all of whom made written statements to the investigating officer.
The investigation also produced 112 pages of documentary evidence. The records of interview alone amounted to 54 typed pages. I am told that none of the witnesses cited by Mr. Sutherland was able to offer evidence substantiating his allegations. I am also told that the report recommended that no action should be taken against any of the officers named in the allegations.
PC Sutherland was personally advised of the conclusions of the report in February 1989. I know that Mr. Sutherland retired from the Metropolitan police service in 1992. Since his retirement, Mr. Sutherland has corresponded regularly with Members of Parliament and with senior officers in the Metropolitan police about his concerns and allegations and about what he considers to be the unsatisfactory internal investigations procedures within the Metropolitan police.
I am aware of the on-going correspondence on this matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman has received replies from both Commander Quinn and, in 1996, from the then Deputy Commissioner stating that a further review had been carried out and they were both satisfied that the correct procedures had been followed.
I understand that Mr. Sutherland also made further allegations—although not directly related to the original inquiry—about what he believed amounted to malicious acts against him. The Commissioner has advised me that a full explanation was offered to Mr. Sutherland rejecting each of the allegations as unsubstantiated. I have raised the inquiry again with the Metropolitan police, who have confirmed that they are content that the procedures followed in the initial inquiry complied fully with the regulations in force at the time, and that they have no reason to doubt the conclusions that were reached. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman or Mr. Sutherland have any material that they believe is new and of a significant nature and they wish to give it to me, I will be happy to pass it to the Commissioner for his consideration.
It is not for me to comment on the allegations themselves. Those matters are properly for the investigating officer to consider. However, we must recognise the importance of ensuring that all police forces—including the Metropolitan police, for which the Home Secretary is the police authorityare properly equipped to deal with allegations of impropriety, as well as —other general complaints.
It is, of course, important for the Metropolitan police to satisfy themselves today—in a new climate, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—about how Mr. Sutherland's claims were investigated. They have reported to me that they are confident that the conclusions of the inquiry report are both fair and accurate. I know, too, that the Metropolitan police take very seriously any allegations of wrongdoing by any of their officers, whether they are made by the general public, fellow officers or by civilians.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in his annual policing report for 1999—2000, the Commissioner is uncompromising when it comes to integrity:
Integrity lies at the very heart of policing and it is essential to build and maintain trust within the MPS and with Londoners.
I agree with that, but it is a matter of ensuring that that promise is delivered.
The Commissioner has publicly expressed his determination to tackle corruption in the Metropolitan police. In recent years, the Metropolitan police have deployed sophisticated methods to investigate corruption and the Metropolitan police's complaints investigation bureau—CIB—created a new branch, CIB3, whose purpose is to investigate allegations of serious corruption.
In December 1998, the Commissioner launched the Met's corruption and dishonesty prevention strategy, which aims to ensure that there is no hiding place for those who are dishonest or unethical. One aspect of this is the "Right Line", a confidential telephone line for any members of staff who wish to report concerns about corrupt, dishonest or unethical behaviour in a confidential and secure way. This is administered by CIB's intelligence cell. It is publicised by a poster campaign and an advertisement in the internal police newspaper The Job. I welcome the Commissioner's commitment to ridding the Metropolitan police of corruption. I fully support him in those efforts, as I support every other force that is actively seeking to tackle corruption.
I would also like to say a few words about the conduct of internal investigations. It is the Government's policy that internal investigations should be conducted fairly, impartially and thoroughly. Today, detailed procedures exist for internal police investigations that provide safeguards for the thoroughness of the investigation and for officers under investigation.
The procedures are set out in the "Guidance to Chief Officers on Complaints and Discipline" and, from April 1999, in the detailed "Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures". The procedures are designed to accord with the principles of natural justice and the basic principles of fairness. In particular, the guidance on internal investigations is designed to ensure proper investigation of the matter in question, as well as to be fair to officers under investigation.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree—this point was made by Mr. Sutherland—that unless officers believe that their complaint will be not only treated in confidence but investigated by somebody who is beyond reproach and utterly impartial, they will feel that they dare not make a complaint for fear of the consequences that Mr. Sutherland and others reaped in similar cases? Is not that assurance still missing from the procedures?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to ensure confidence in the conduct


of investigations. I shall certainly pass on to the Commissioner the points that he has made about independence, but the Commissioner and the Home Secretary are satisfied that the conduct of investigations, certainly under the new procedures that have just been introduced, will be satisfactory and will win confidence.
In addition to those principles, investigations should be completed as soon as practicable and the investigating officer should ensure that the officer under investigation—and the complainant, if applicable—is kept informed of the progress of the investigation, particularly if there is delay. We certainly want to ensure that where there are long delays and those involved are concerned about the reasons for those delays, an explanation is given.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I realise that this is not the hon. Gentleman's brief, but will he do one more thing for me and ask the Metropolitan Commissioner and anybody else who is involved whether, given the new attitude that exists, they would be prepared to reconsider the case once more in a positive light?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Commissioner. I must, however, remind him that a succession of senior officers in the Met have, over a period of 11 years, considered the allegations made by Mr. Sutherland. In no instance has any of those allegations been found to be substantiated. The senior officers have repeatedly examined the papers and they have not concluded that they could take any further action on that matter.
It is important that the investigating officer who is responsible for the inquiry ensures that it is carried out as impartially, confidentially and properly as possible. The investigation of all internal allegations is rightly a management responsibility for the chief officer of the force concerned. Chief officers share the concern to identify and deal with officers who have been accused of abusing their positions, particularly if there is evidence that they have done so.
I am sorry to hear of Mr. Sutherland's disillusionment and his significant health problems and worries, which have arisen partly from his deep concern about these matters. The hon. Gentleman has said that the debate was in many ways a last resort. Bearing in mind what I have said about passing on some of his comments to the Commissioner, the hon. Gentleman can tell his constituent that by raising this matter, he has done all that can be done. I regret that I am not in a position—nor is the Home Office and, I am told, nor is the Commissioner—to help his constituent any further. It is time to say that very clearly to the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
The hon. Gentleman, as any hon. Member should, has raised the matter properly and argued his case. The debate was, as he said, an action of last resort; the response is the one that I have given. I am told by the Commissioner that he cannot take this matter further. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman requests, I shall pass his comments on to the Commissioner.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Nine o'clock.